Female Representation

February 20th, 2012 at 5:09 pm by David Farrar

Just been re-reading the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System which recommended . Was surprised to read that at the time was recommended, women made up only 13% of the NZ Parliament (which was horribly low) but in Germany which had , they were only 10% of the Federal Parliament.

I guess it is a useful reminder that the electoral system by itself won’t determine how diverse the Parliament is.

In fact in 1986 NZ had higher female representation in Parliament than the UK, US and Canada (FPP), Australia (PV), Malta and Ireland (STV), Israel, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Austria and Switzerland (Party List) and Germany (MMP).

The only countries cited as having greater female representation in 1986 were Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

Tags:

21 Responses to “Female Representation”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Fascinating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dick (80 comments) says:

    Borinating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Even 13% means too many empty kitchens out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. whoisthisguy02 (29 comments) says:

    The only thing that should determine the proportions of parliament are the voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    When MMP was introduced in New Zealand the proportion of women in the ranks of MPs leapt from 21% to 30% overnight. Even now, more women are elected on party lists than in electorates even though there are 70 electorates and 50 list MPs.
    Before the ’11 election the proportion of women stood at 33%. I am not sure what it is now, but still close to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Viking2 (11,550 comments) says:

    Yep and look at the state of things. we are near broke, social welfare is greater than work fare,we have more rules regulations, quangos, idiot don’t do this or that laws and rules then ever before. We have depts of this and that that spend their day sepnding money for litle or no reward for the taxpayer.
    We have racist and dehumanizing depts that we never had before.
    Our young people have never been so disenfranchised since we abolished child slavery.

    Just bring back the basic man.
    Non of these thrill seeking pseudo males, metro men and poofs.
    To many female like creatures inhabit that infested behive. Its suffering from fowl brood and when a hive gets fowl brood the beekeeper has to destroy it by burning.
    Call Guy Fawkes QUICK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Lol. Too many empty kitchens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Greater representation of woman is most likely a good thing, my concern though is that we’re now defining what’s right for governance based on proportionality, and saying that one group cannot speak (almost must not) speak for another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    And while we’re on the topic, and the Greens are worried about Mojo Mathers and the deaf minorities. What about the unborn children who don’t have a representation in parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mikenmild (11,651 comments) says:

    Oh dear.
    Judging by the comment, stupid MPs represent a very large constituency. Perhaps we could have MPs representing animals too…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (662) Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    Greater representation of woman is most likely a good thing, my concern though is that we’re now defining what’s right for governance based on proportionality, and saying that one group cannot speak (almost must not) speak for another.

    So then surely you will not mind if I speak for you, will you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Many More Panties

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    EWS,


    What about the unborn children who don’t have a representation in parliament?

    What about the born children who don’t have representation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    What about the perky hot lasses with buns to die for?

    They appear to have absolutely no representation in parliament as far as I can see….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Homosexual make up less than 4% of the population max including bisexuals. WHat percentage of MPs were homosexual in the last government? Whatever it was I think they were overrepresented.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    Hey Chucky, we talk about women and you bring up the homos. Again! You have some serious issues, man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. emmess (1,432 comments) says:

    Glad someone is calling bullshit on the MMP = diversity argument, the main factor is time.
    Not that I give a crap though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Joel Rowan (99 comments) says:

    Judging by the comment, stupid MPs represent a very large constituency. Perhaps we could have MPs representing animals too…

    I believe there was a Green Party list MP who, in her valedictory, proclaimed she had represented the animal constituency. Besides her intellect being on approximately the same level, I wasn’t really sure how she defined that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    eszett, the issue is if so called victim groups are fairly represented – not whether I have issues because I do not accept the libertarian crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    So you think women are a “victim group”? Interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Did your mother tell you what masturbating too much would do to you eyesight? Try rereading my post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote