MPs compared to the population
December 1st, 2011 at 2:27 pm by David Farrar
The Herald did a story yesterday based on my analysis, and said it showed there was little diversity in Parliament and the average MP was a straight, European man from the North Island aged in his 50s.
In fact only 10% of MPs are straight, European men from the North Island aged in his 50s. Five average characteristics do not make one overall average.
With the exception of gender, I think Parliament does quite well on the diversity stakes, as is shown above. I have excluded age from this comparison as I don’t think anyone really thinks that Parliament should have 21 MPs aged in their 20s and 20 MPs aged over 65.
Note the comparisons are to the adult (15+ or 18+) population.
On gender, there is a serious imbalance. Later on, we’ll look at the breakdown by party.
Ethnicity is very interesting. Maori are the most over-represented ethnicity followed by European. Pacific are slightly under-repreented and it is Asian New Zealanders who are the most under-represented.
Geographically Auckland and provincial cities are pretty spot on. However Wellington and Christchurch are over-represented at the expense of those who live outside a city.
The North Island v South Island balance is almost spot on.
The number of gay/lesbian MPs is also pretty proportional. There is no definite prevalance rate for gay and lesbian adults, but 5% is generally regarded as in the ballpark. In times past 10% was often cited, but this is now thought to be too high.
So as I said overall, I think Parliament does quite well on the diversity front. Now let us look at the breakdowns for the four main parties.
In terms of gender, the Greens are broadly balanced (their rules require it), Labour and NZ First have a 2:1 ratio for men to women and National a 3:1 ratio. National does need to select more women in winnable seats or in winnable list spots.
13% of the adult population is Maori, and 10% of National’s caucus if of Maori descent, 18% of Labour’s and around a quarter of the Greens and NZ First.
5% of National’s caucus is Asian, as is 3% of Labour’s. No Green or NZ First Asian MPs.
9% of Labour’s caucus are Pacific, 13% of NZ First’s and 3% of National’s.
In terms of geography, NZ First is very Auckland dominated, and the Greens relatively light.
Labour and the Greens both have heavy Wellington biases with three times as many MPs from Wellington, as you would expect from the population. Conversely NZ First has no Wellington MPs and National only 5% from Wellington.
The Greens do badly in provincial cities. In rural areas (outside cities), National is the only party with proportional representation. Labour and NZ First have less than half what the population share is.
Based on island, the Greens are out of kilter with only 62% in the North Island where 74% of the population live.
By sexuality, National’s rainbow representation is just 2%, Labour’s is 12% and the Greens at 15%. NZ First have none (known).
Finally, there are some interesting age patterns. National’s most common age is in the 40s. Labour’s most common is 50s, Greens also 50s and NZ First 60s. Labour have a lot in the 30s also.In terms of median ages it looks like NZ First is the oldest and Greens the youngest.
Related posts:
- Maori Over-Representation
- Labour’s Diversity
- Parliamentary Demographics
- More race based seats called for
December 1st, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Hope we can look forward to the Greens leading the way and sacking some Maoris and replacing them with Asian, female, rural folks.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Although the Greens have gender balance in their MP’s elected, their list has 21 females in a list of 61 (34%).
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 2:42 pm
No Green or NZ First Asian MPs
Wait, didn’t Winnie try to say once that his ancestors came from Taiwan therefore he’s Asian?
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Apprently parliament and prisons are the same, Maori are over-represented.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 2:48 pm
And here was me thinking the country would be better balanced if more MP’s were imprisoned Murray.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:00 pm
It is an interesting possibility John.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:07 pm
It seems the ideal MP would be a 49 year old Maori transsexual from a provincial city (but with an Auckland apartment) who eats rice and enjoys regular visits to the South Island and Rarotonga.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Maybe, JamesS, maybe. Or it could just be that you’re a complete twat.
I guess if you don’t like those homosexuals, there’s really only one party that you can vote for – On ya, Winston…
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:33 pm
1 in 20 New Zealanders are gay?
Vote:Please. If that was true both our society and politics would look very different.
December 1st, 2011 at 3:34 pm
RRM – I am gay (duh!)
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:43 pm
5% of New Zealanders being gay is too high. It’s most likely to be less than 2%.
[DPF: Based on past workplaces, I'd say 5% is about right for gay and lesbians. If one includes bisexuals, I'd say the figure is much higher for women]
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:44 pm
One thing to consider is that NZ first has only 8 MPs, so if just one were to change camps there’d be a swing of 12.5% from one category to another. Further, Greens have 13 MPs, so if one were to change there’s a swing of around 8%. Thus, while it seems not so flash that (for example) NZ first have no Asian MPs or the Greens are underrepresented in provincial cities, just one member is the only difference.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Surely we can go nuts with demographics
Jews (ethnic or religious):
National 2%. Everybody else 0%. Population 0.001%
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:50 pm
A break down by religion would be interesting.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:52 pm
only if you count belief in Global warming as a religion (which it is, being based mostly on faith and not fact), in which case the greens would be at 100% God or Gore Botherers.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Does the geographical spread by party reflect the geographical spread of voting support?
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 4:08 pm
On ya, Winston…
And with the complete support of the Labour party, and de facto acceptance from the Greens.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I think there are probably more open gays, than open atheists.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 4:20 pm
@James Stephenson: How about David Parker? I suspect a bunch of the Greens would call themselves athiests as well.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Thats some nice bitch slappn you got going on there JamesS.
RRM, your move.
Whenever you’re ready.
Note: You’ll have to do better than “complete twat” because you seem to have taken ownership of that one.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 4:51 pm
The prevalence for homosexuality is usually taken to be 1 or 2 per cent, sometimes as high as 4%.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Politicians that have children.
There will be many things that affect these number – such average MP age, ratios of men/women in caucus, and wealth. But the stats are interesting. I couldn’t find numbers for 16/121 MPs so I’ll try and update but I don’t expect numbers to move much. The numbers are the average number of children per MP per party.
ACT – 3 (Banks has 3 adopted kids – what good guy)
Vote:Green – 1.3
Labour – 1.9
Maori&Mana – 5.75 (that’s not a typo)
National – 2.2
NZFirst – 1.7
UF – 2
December 1st, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Can I add that I do not think that at an individual level a person with no kids, cannot sympathise with or advocate for parents, kids and families. Just like a Pakeha can advocate for Maori. Or men being able to advocate for women. However, at a collective level, I do think this might have an influence.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 5:51 pm
“The prevalence for homosexuality is usually taken to be 1 or 2 per cent, sometimes as high as 4%.”
That sounds about right. So when one takes into account those in the closet homosexuals they are one group overrepresented particularly in Labour and the Greens.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 5:55 pm
When it comes to children it would seem that Peter and Mrs Dunne are unique in being able to do things properly.
When you look at the other parties MPs and children 1.3, 1.9, 5.75, 2.2, 1.7 – obviously someone was doing something wrong!
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 6:04 pm
There has been a lot of talk about gay MPs in the last day or so; there has been the usual comments from those who cannot believe gay people actually exist and are part of day to day life.
David’s statistics have been interesting but I challenge anybody to name a Cabinet since World War 1 which has not had a gay member; name a parliament since World War 1 without gay MPs.
It is tempting to “fill out the list a little” from our current MPs, but I shall not – although one name in particular may surprise some people (and yes, I could prove it with a 25 year old video a friend of mine gave me which sits in my safe deposit box).
So can everyone just accept that gay MPs are a fact of life, have been for donkeys years, and when it comes to gay sex and MPs all may not be what it seems.
(I just happen to think gay MPs should not be singled out because there are others who are not listed in any stats about gay MPs)
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 6:07 pm
James, that is interesting. Would you be able to put parties to the numbers please.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Hell you expect MP’s to be gay it’s the gay All Blacks that shatter me.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 8:28 pm
People should be appointed because they are competent, not because they are a particular gender, ethnicity or of a particular sexual orientation. I find polls such as this silly.
“A break down by religion would be interesting.”
Politicians adopt whatever religious or philosophical belief they think will get them into power. The vast majority of politicians are probably areligious, that is to say they are neither Christian nor atheist.
Vote:December 1st, 2011 at 10:46 pm
I also find it difficult to believe in the 5% homosexual figure. Where did DPF get that figure?
For instance, according to the Telegraph last year, official figures after a census on the subject show that just one and a half percent (1.5%) of the population in the UK is gay or bisexual. Would it be more than that in New Zealand?
And if so, why? I would have thought the figures would be similar.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/8020574/Gay-population-much-lower-than-believed-first-official-figures-show.html
And this is from a story in Stuff in 2007 –
I know this ‘living together’ is only an indicator but it is the most accurate there is. I don’t see it being as much as 5% The figure is more likely to be under 1% which means that gays are way over-represented in parliament (especially in the liberal parties like Labour and the Greens).
Vote:December 2nd, 2011 at 1:00 am
Fletch, I sincerely doubt it’s as low as 1.5% anymore. That’s probably the number of people who are genuinely homosexual. However, amongst young people gay and lesbian relationships are ‘trendy’ and ‘rebel’. Many people who don’t even have homosexual attraction or are too young to fall in love experiment with homosexual relationships. Thus, 5% is probably a more accurate figure.
Vote:December 2nd, 2011 at 8:18 am
Aredhel, still doubtful. You’re including young people now who are “rebeling” and “experimenting”?
Vote:But I wouldn’t consider them homosexual, and I doubt gays would either.
December 2nd, 2011 at 8:25 am
Also, that shoots the definition of ‘homosexual’ out of the water (eg, the “born this way” myth).
You either are or you aren’t, isn’t that how the narrative is supposed to go?
Otherwise it would be like a Ford man “experimenting” by driving a Holden just to see what it’s like. If you took a census on the cars people drive at the time he is experimenting and he puts down ‘Holden’ is he really a Holden man?
Vote:December 2nd, 2011 at 8:57 am
I have to suggest that being pregnant is a condition that David has not measured. There must be a known proportion of the population who, at any one point of time, are pregnant. Ergo, the female MPs need to draw straws and have a roster in order to ensure that this much ignored group are represented. (same could apply to ovulation cycles but there is evidence that groups of women herded into a close environment will synchronise their cycles so any roster attempt would fail)
What is being pointed out of course in this discussion is the ultimate absudity of the proportionality argument.
We are all gaga about selected groupings being represented proportionally but totally ignore other groupings and consider tem irrelevant. Different strokes for different folks makes that situation self-serving of the political and PC tragics and disenfranchising to others.
Vote:December 2nd, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Ironically, the focus on a few diversity factors blinds some to how self-similar these almost uniformly leftwing (and all, now, upper income) these MPs are.
Also, instead of respecting the ability of any one MP to potentially represent the interests of their electorate as a whole (both men and women), focusing on the “importance” of the “diversity” of MPs based on superficial factors compared to the ideas people have, tends our thinking towards a singularly LEFTWING outlook. No wonder the left says, “Hurray for diversity!!” The divide and conquer strategy of the left marches on… For example, this outlook leads to one set of rules for Maori and another for everyone else. Is diversity of laws a good thing too? It’s the end result if a diversity of law makers, as if each has their own loyalties to people groups? Why not have political parties for each of these groups, then? Is that also desireable? It would be the logical outcome of this thinking. They actually have quotas for female MPs in Sweden, as if men’s and women’s interests are not bound up together but rather either-or. Pure leftism, this thinking.
Let’s focus on ideas instead of reducing individuals to a single label. Aren’t political parties about ideas? Or is just about what each group can grab from the public trough whatever they can get for their “people”? No wonder real political debate is almost dead in this country.
Vote:December 2nd, 2011 at 2:30 pm
@LabourDoesnt Work
Exactly, all this demographics/diversity analysis is complete codswallop of no importance. I couldn’t care less if our parliament was all men, woman, gay, straight, blondes etc, so long as they are there on merit, with the best ideas and were prepared to debate then rigorously.
Vote:December 2nd, 2011 at 4:27 pm
1 in 20 are homosexual? Bollix sir.
Vote:December 2nd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Surveys generally find the prevalence of homosexuality to be around the 1 to 2 per cent range but sometimes as high as 4%. But there are a lot of problems with such studies however. One obvious one is that, depending on how the study is done, not everyone will give an honest answer for reasons of privacy. A second one is that teens don’t always know the answer themselves. Its known that some teens realise they are not heterosexual but may take a while to determine whether they are gay or bi or asexual.
A third problem is that the prevalence probably does show genuine variation between populations. We know that the probability that a man is gay increases with the number of older biological brothers he has. This means that societies with large familes will tend to have more gay people than societies with small families, which means in turn that deeply religious societies will have more gay people in them than less religious societies.
Vote: