 |
The Parliamentary Responsiveness of Australian Federal MPs to their
Ethnic Constituents
Gianni Zappalà
1996 Australian Parliamentary Fellow, Politics and Public Administration
Group
Contents
Major Issues Summary
Introduction
Studies of Political Representation in Australia
The Influence of Ethnicity on Representational Behaviour
The influence of the ethnicity of the electorate
The influence of the ethnicity of the representative
Method and Data Source
The Findings: the Ethnic Electorate Effect?
Across group differences
Within group differences
Discussion
The marginality hypothesis
The party effect
The ethnic MP effect
The type of ethnic issues
Conclusion
References
Endnotes
Appendix 1: Federal electorates with at least 15 per cent
of population born in NESCs
Discussion of political representation has been dominated by the well
known mandate/independence dichotomy, concerned with the question of how
should elected representatives act? Should they be free to do and act
in the manner they think best serves the national interest (the trustee),
or should they rather act as an agent for their constituents and behave
and vote according to their constituents' views? (the delegate). Studies
of Australian representatives have generally found that MPs face conflicting
pressures from the rather unholy trinity of their constituents, their
party and their conscience. Such a framework has tended to ignore the
possible role of ethnicity on representational behaviour. Another more
appropriate response to understanding political representation has been
to see the process as a complex whole and one which should focus on the
degree of responsiveness a representative may display towards their
constituents on a range of matters:
i) service responsiveness: the situation where an MP attempts
to gain advantages for individual constituents through case work;
ii) allocation responsiveness: the situation where an MP attempts
to gain advantages for groups in the electorate;
iii) policy responsiveness: the degree to which a representative
takes into account constituent views when making policy or voting on bills
in the national Parliament;
iv) symbolic responsiveness: defined as a 'relationship built
on trust and confidence expressed in the support that the represented
give to the representative and to which he (sic) responds by symbolic,
significant gestures';
v) parliamentary responsiveness: the responsiveness of MPs (with
respect to all of the above matters) to particular sub-constituencies
of their electorate in the official arena of representation, the Parliament.
This study examines the parliamentary responsiveness of Australian MPs
with specific reference to their ethnic sub-constituencies. Research suggests
that constituent trust and confidence in their elected representatives
is influenced by MPs' Parliamentary behaviour.
Ethnicity has a twofold influence on the representational behaviour of
elected representatives: the ethnicity of the electorate and the ethnicity
of the elected representative. Both factors have been ignored in studies
of Australian representational behaviour. This neglect is particularly
detrimental when it is considered that 48 of the 148 Federal electorates
(just under one third) have at least 15 per cent of their population born
in a non-English speaking country (NESC). At least 20 Federal electorates
have one-quarter or more of their electors born in NESCs (see Appendix
1). The neglect of the ethnicity of the electorate's role on representational
behaviour may be due to the fact that academic opinion continues to be
divided over the electoral significance of the ethnic vote. Yet politicians
often behave as if an ethnic vote does exist. This raises the question
of whether MPs from ethnic electorates (at least 15 per cent born
in NESCs) behave in ways which are different to MPs from non-ethnic electorates.
The second way in which ethnicity may influence representational behaviour
is if the MP is from an ethnic background. The assumption is that MPs
from ethnic backgrounds will be more responsive and empathetic to the
wishes of constituents from ethnic backgrounds than MPs who are not. In
contrast to studies of the role of gender in representation, however,
the small number of MPs from non-English speaking background (NESB) in
Federal Parliament has precluded tests of this assumption with respect
to ethnicity. Although there may be broader system-wide reasons to have
a legislature which better reflects Australia's ethnic diversity, the
jury is still out on whether MPs from ethnic backgrounds better represent
ethnic constituents.
This paper presents and discusses the results of a content analysis of
the parliamentary interventions of MPs from twelve ethnic electorates
and ten non-ethnic electorates between 1983 and 1996. On the basis of
this analysis, two indexes were constructed, the ethnic reference ratio
and the ethnic distance ratio in order to compare the responsiveness
of MPs to their ethnic constituents. The findings suggest that:
- The ethnicity of the electorate does have an influence on ethnic responsiveness
in absolute terms but less so in relative terms. In other words, MPs
from ethnic electorates generally make more ethnic related interventions
than MPs from non-ethnic electorates, but not as much as the proportion
of ethnic constituents in these electorates would suggest they should
make.
- The ethnicity of the electorate also influences the type of ethnic
issues MPs make in Parliament, with those from ethnic seats more likely
to make constituency related issues.
- Within the non-ethnic electorates, a somewhat surprising result is
the strong performance of the National Party, with two of the three
most responsive (non-ethnic) electorates being held by representatives
from the National Party. The result for the electorate of Riverina,
for example, lends support to the idea that a minority group in a single
member electorate is likely to have a bigger influence on the elected
representative when they are a significant force in the electorate.
- The marginality of the seat, especially in ethnic electorates, rather
than the political party to which the representative belongs, would
appear to have a bigger influence on the degree and type of responsiveness
which MPs displayed towards their ethnic constituents.
- Finally, the findings support the assumption, albeit tentatively,
that the ethnicity of the MP does have an influence on both the degree
and type of ethnic responsiveness. The findings suggest that such MPs
are taking on representational roles which extend beyond the geographical
confines of their immediate electorates. They become (willingly or not)
national representatives and symbols for Australians of ethnic background
due to the small number of MPs from NESB in the Federal Parliament.
Studies of political representation in Australia have been more notable
by their absence with there being a twenty year gap between the first
such study (Emy 1974) and more recent work (Studlar and McAllister 1994,
1996). The rise in interest can be traced to two main factors. First,
the emergence of issue movements and minor parties has led to a questioning
of traditional interpretations of Australia's system-wide processes of
representation (Marsh and Uhr 1995). Second, and relatedly, the increasing
political mobilisation of these issue movements and interest groups has
led to a focus on the representation of previously excluded groups and
interests from Australian political life, such as women (Sawer and Simms
1984; McAllister and Studlar 1992; Sawer and Zetlin 1996) and indigenous
peoples (Bennett 1989; Brennan 1995). The role of ethnicity in discussions
of representation in Australian politics, however, is still largely ignored.(1)
Although we now may have a better understanding of the voting behaviour
and party identification of immigrants (McAllister 1992, 142-5; McAllister
and Makkai 1991), we know little about how the ethnic composition of many
electorates interacts with Australia's system of political representation.
This paper examines two key issues: i) does the ethnicity of the electorate
influence the behaviour of MPs at the Parliamentary level; ii) what other
factors influence the degree of parliamentary responsiveness on the part
of MPs to their ethnic constituents. The issues were explored by constructing
an ethnic reference ratio and an ethnic distance ratio based
on a content analysis of the parliamentary interventions of MPs between
1983 and 1996 from twenty-two Federal electorates. This is by no means
a representative sample, comprising only 15 per cent of all Federal electorates.
Nevertheless, given the paucity of research in ethnic representation in
Australia, such an analysis provides a useful and original contribution
to furthering the understanding of the relationship between ethnicity
and political representation in Australia. The remainder of the paper
briefly reviews the concept of representation, examines the twofold manner
in which ethnicity may influence representation in Australia, discusses
the data and method used in further detail and presents the main findings
and their implications for future research.(2)
Discussion of political representation has been dominated by the well
known mandate/independence dichotomy (Pitkin 1972, 144-67). In brief,
this dichotomy is concerned with the question of how should elected representatives
act? Should they be free to do and act in the manner they think best serves
the national interest (the trustee), or should they rather act as an agent
for their constituents and behave and vote according to their constituents'
views? (the delegate). This dichotomy has been criticised for two main
reasons. First, because it is argued to be a false distinction in practice.
The proper role of the representative is generally believed to fall somewhere
between these two poles (Pennock 1979, 325).
Responses to this problem have been to add a new category, such as 'politico',
argued to be a representative who acts in both ways (Wahlke et al 1962),
or to accept that they are ideal types and therefore aim to quantify the
finer differences between the two extremes (Converse and Pierce 1986,
497-99). Another response has been to recognise that in many parliamentary
systems elected representatives often act and vote according to party
discipline. The responsible party model, as it is known, is still a variant
of the mandate or delegate thesis. In this case, the parties put forward
alternative platforms to the electorate who then instruct by electing
one party over another (Converse and Pierce 1986, 698-706). Australia
is argued to conform most closely with the responsible party government
model of representation (Studlar and McAllister 1996, 73), nevertheless,
the dichotomy between pressures from the electorate as against pressures
from party is still seen as one of degree rather than an either or choice
(Marsh 1995, 119-21).
The second criticism regards the empirical component of studies within
this framework. Some argue, for example, that conceiving of representation
within this framework gives a bias to the delegate aspect of representation
(Schwartz 1988, 26). More importantly, others point to the paradox that
an elected representative may be avowedly trustee in belief, but still
faithfully represent his or her electorate's opinions because they are
a native of the area and have therefore internalised some of their outlook
(Converse and Pierce 1986, 502). There are also problems concerning how
an elected representative perceives their electorate sentiment on a particular
issue, or which sub-constituency within an electorate a representative
is aiming to please (Fenno 1978; Maddox 1996, 404-5).
In spite of these problems, Australian studies of representation have
been firmly rooted in the representational roles paradigm (Emy 1974, 456-99).
More recent work, based on surveys of candidates and incumbent MPs, while
although addressing aspects of service and policy responsiveness, remains
within the mandate/independence mould. Studlar and McAllister (1994),
for instance, showed that candidates identified with three types of representational
roles: locals, who focus on addressing constituency based concerns
and interests; partisans, who see their role in party political
terms; and legislators, who emphasise the parliamentary and policy
role of an elected representative.(3) Similarly, the same authors (1996)
found that Australian MPs conformed to three main distinctions in terms
of representational roles, what they termed the free mandate, responsible
party and the imperative mandate. The terms may be different but the substance
is the same, MPs face conflicting pressures from the rather unholy trinity
of their constituents, their party and their conscience. These latter
studies have added to our knowledge with respect to several areas, for
instance, the relative incidence of each type of role according to representatives'
party affiliation and personal characteristics, whether representational
role beliefs influence behaviour, and the motivations for particular behavioural
patterns. The issue of ethnicity (of either the elected representative
or of the electorate), however, has been ignored.
A more adequate response has been to see the process of representation
as a complex whole and one which should focus on the degree of responsiveness
a representative may display towards their constituents on a range
of matters (Eulau and Karps 1977). One can specify four main types of
representational responsiveness (Jewell 1983, 304):
i) service responsiveness: the situation where an MP attempts
to gain advantages for individual constituents through case work;
ii) allocation responsiveness: the situation where an MP attempts
to gain advantages for groups in the electorate;
iii) policy responsiveness: the degree to which a representative
takes into account constituent views when making policy or voting on bills
in the national Parliament;
iv) symbolic responsiveness: defined as a 'relationship built
on trust and confidence expressed in the support that the represented
give to the representative and to which he (sic) responds by symbolic,
significant gestures'.
Such a framework facilitates the introduction of ethnicity as a possible
and important influence on the representational process. For instance,
service and allocation responsiveness cannot be adequately understood
in some Australian electorates without taking the role of ethnic community
organisations into account (Zappal 1997). Similarly, symbolic responsiveness
by MPs from ethnic electorates may be achieved in either or both of what
Norton and Wood (1993, 24) have termed the two faces of representation:
the local constituency face and the official parliamentary face. This
study can be seen as an examination of the parliamentary responsiveness
of MPs in the official arena of representation with specific reference
to their ethnic sub-constituency. In a sense, it examines all four types
of representational responsiveness with respect to ethnic constituents
as measured by the interventions of MPs in Parliament.
A useful point of departure for examining the issue of ethnic responsiveness
is the simple typology of ethnic representatives in Australia put forward
by Jupp and colleagues (1989, 32). They argued that ethnic representatives
in Australia may be divided into four main categories:
- those who rely on a base of NESB voters to a major extent;
- those who are sensitive and responsive to NESB voters although not
NESB themselves;
- those who are of NESB but do not have a distinctively NESB electorate;
- those who are of NESB but have been chosen as part of a party ticket
for a multi-member electorate (i.e. the Senate).
The typology, albeit lacking empirical verification, suggests that ethnicity
influences representation in two distinct ways. First, that the attitudes
and behaviour of elected representatives are influenced by the ethnicity
of their electorate (categories 1 and 2). Second, that the attitudes and
behaviour of elected representatives of ethnic background may differ from
that of other representatives (categories 3 and 4). This paper is primarily
concerned with the first of these influences. Nevertheless, it also provides
evidence which casts light on the second dimension of this typology.
The influence of the ethnicity of the electorate
The first manner in which the typology outlined above suggested that
ethnicity influenced representational behaviour was through the ethnicity
of the electorate. This is part of what the wider literature on representation
terms the composition of the electorate effect. This includes such
aspects as the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the electorate, its socio-economic
composition, whether it is rural or urban, and its ethnic and racial
makeup (Pennock 1979; Fenno 1978; Jewell 1982, 1983). Although many Australian
studies have argued that the composition of the electorate with respect
to ethnicity is an important variable influencing voting behaviour (McAllister
1992, 145), its impact on a representative's attitudes and behaviour has
not been fully explored. The quantitative and qualitative aspects of ethnic
diversity in Australia are well known and require little elaboration.(4)
Suffice to note that such diversity has important implications when it
is translated to Australia's electoral system of single-member geographical
constituencies. For instance, Appendix 1 suggests that 48 of the 148 Federal
electorates (just under one third) have at least 15 per cent of their
population born in a non-English speaking country (NESC).(5) At least
20 Federal electorates have one-quarter or more of their electors born
in NESCs. As Jupp (1988, 173) has stated:
Immigrants of NESB in Australia should be and are of interest to politicians
because of their numbers in particular electorates...such an element
of the electorate is too large, vocal and well organised to be ignored
by parties hoping to govern.
Why has the ethnicity of electorates been ignored in studies of representation?
One possible reason is that political scientists are generally more interested
in marginal seats, and most marginal electorates in Australia, with one
or two key exceptions, also have a low proportion of people from NESB
(Jupp 1996, 9). A more important reason concerns the continuing debate
over the so-called 'ethnic vote'. The main approach to voting behaviour
in Australia has been the model that class or occupation, of either individuals
or of geographical electorates, is the main determining factor in explaining
voter choice (McAllister 1992, 152-68). This school of thought still has
a strong following, despite studies which suggest that ethnicity may also
be important. Although most commentators agree that there is no such thing
as an ethnic vote in the sense that particular blocs of votes are directed
towards particular candidates or parties along ethnic lines, several studies
have nevertheless demonstrated that at particular points in time, the
manner in which people of NESB voted may have determined the outcome of
a Federal election (McAllister 1988).
Those that argue against the existence of an ethnic vote base this view
on the fact that 'ethnic' electorates also tend to be traditional working-class
areas. That is, the fact that many ethnic Australians vote for the ALP
is not because they are ethnic or that they feel the ALP better represents
ethnic interests, but because their socio-economic position makes them
natural Labor voters (Economou 1994, 1995). Furthermore, any possible
influence that ethnicity might have on voting behaviour is marginal to
the outcome of Federal elections because of the lack of transfer of ethnic
seats between the major parties. That is, with minor exceptions, ethnic
seats are not influential in leading to a change of government at the
polls (Economou 1994).
Several other studies, however, have clearly shown that ethnicity does
have an effect over and above class (Forrest 1988; Jupp et al 1989, 15;
McAllister 1992, 142-6). They have found that party identification varies
with ethnic background, that voters from Southern European, Eastern Mediterranean
and Middle Eastern origin are markedly pro-Labor, holding class constant,
while voters from Northern Europe and English speaking countries are more
conservative. Despite these findings, opinion continues to be divided
over the electoral significance of the ethnic vote and its very existence,
and this may have contributed to the reticence of examining the influence
of ethnicity on representational activity.
The literature also suggests that two other 'electorate' variables may
influence the attitudes and behaviour of elected representatives apart
from the composition of the electorate. First, is what is known as the
marginality of seat hypothesis (Converse and Pierce 1986, 743).
In brief, the argument is that a representative who comes from a safe
seat might feel more free to depart from the direct wishes of their constituents
than would a representative from a marginal seat. Empirical tests of this
hypothesis, however, have produced mixed results. A study of representation
in France found the opposite to be the case (Converse and Pierce 1986,
745-59),(6) while a British study found that members from safe seats had
a greater tendency to neglect their constituencies (Crewe 1985, 48). A
recent study of Australia found that MPs representing marginal electorates
are unlikely to provide any more constituency service (apart from local
party work) compared to MPs representing safe seats (Studlar and McAllister
1996, 81). One observation of interest is the fact that the highly ethnic
electorates in Appendix 1 also tend to be safe Labor seats. This is given
further support by the results of the March 1996 election where only two
of the top twenty ethnic electorates changed hands, Lowe, which went from
Labor to Liberal, and Wills, which went back to Labor after a brief period
of being held by an Independent.
The final variable found to influence representatives' attitudes and
behaviour relates to the type of policy issue in question. Studies in
the US and France have found that on some issues (e.g. civil-rights, religion),
political representatives are more concerned to mirror the opinions of
their constituents (Converse and Pierce 1986, 727-38). The issues we would
expect to be of most relevance in Australia with respect to ethnicity
are multiculturalism and immigration. There seems to be something of a
paradox, however, regarding the likely impact of these issues on representatives'
attitudes and behaviour. Many commentators have argued that the main reason
why immigrant groups increasingly switched their support to the Labor
Party from the mid-1970s onwards was due to that party's position on multiculturalism
(Forrest 1988; Foster and Stockley 1988; McAllister and Makkai 1991).
Whether this was due to Labor politicians' actual beliefs or a cruder
concern to capture the 'ethnic vote' is to a large extent immaterial.
What is important is that it appears that issues such as multiculturalism
were perceived by at least some elected representatives to be important
enough to warrant that they show a greater degree of policy congruence
with their ethnic constituents.(7) This is rational behaviour given that
several studies have shown that voters from a NESB are more sensitive
to multicultural issues (Jupp 1988, 175; Goot 1993).(8) In contrast to
these earlier findings, however, McAllister (1993a, 71) concluded that
attitudes towards multiculturalism have comparatively weak links to party
political behaviour because the major political parties have not placed
multiculturalism and ethnic issues on their political agendas. Furthermore,
he argues that constituents' opinions on immigration play less of a role
in determining their respective candidate's positions on immigration,
relative to party affiliation and personal characteristics (McAllister
1993b, 175).
In conclusion, is there an ethnic electorate effect with respect to representation?
Political scientists have in the past hinted at the importance of ethnicity
of certain electorates with respect to voting behaviour. Although even
this finding remains contested, it is at least clear that 'variables of
ethnicity and gender do complicate a class analysis' (Bottomley 1992,
37). It would be surprising if this were the case for voting behaviour
and not for the attitudes and behaviour of MPs from ethnic electorates.
Another thing is certain, we know that politicians themselves act as if
an ethnic vote does exist, in fact Jupp (1988, 171) has argued that they
act as 'though there were an Italian or Arabic vote'. Such behaviour would
clearly be irrational if ethnicity played no role. Yet why do 'rational'
academics believe that politicians are any less 'rational' than themselves?
Do MPs from ethnic electorates behave in ways which are different to MPs
from non-ethnic electorates? The simple answer is that we do not know.
The data presented below enable some observations to be made with respect
to MPs' parliamentary behaviour. Before we move onto these findings, the
next section expands upon the second manner in which ethnicity may influence
representation.
The influence of the ethnicity of the representative
Representational behaviour may also be influenced by the individual characteristics
of the representative, including ethnicity. Such characteristics can be
divided between acquired and inherent traits. The former include variables
such as age, education, parliamentary experience, party affiliation and
so on. Most studies confirm, for instance, that representatives who are
well educated, have more legislative experience and come from safe seats
are more likely to adopt 'trustee' type attitudes and behaviour in their
representational roles (Jewell 1983, 311). The latter include traits such
as ethnicity. The assumption here is that an elected representative who
is also from a particular group, in this context, from an ethnic background,
would be more responsive and empathetic to the wishes of constituents
from ethnic backgrounds than a representative who is not (Birch 1971,
126). In contrast to acquired traits, it is more difficult to test whether
the inherent traits of representatives makes a difference to their attitudes
and behaviour (Birch 1971, 126). Nevertheless, much effort has gone into
testing whether female representatives, for instance, have different attitudes
and behaviour to their male counterparts (see references in McAllister
and Studlar 1992). Suggestive of the dominance of the responsible party
model of representation in Australia, this same study found that:
women political candidates in Australia represent first their particular
parties, secondarily the voters in their constituencies, and least of
the three their gender (p.402).
This finding supports that school of thought which suggests that inherent
characteristics do not matter. That:
...a representative is not representative of those whom he (sic) represents
does not prevent him from representing them well, and that a representative
is representative of those whom he represents does not guarantee that
he will represent them well. There is no necessity for spaghettis to
rejoice when linguines are elected (Grofman 1982, 99).
In contrast, an implicit assumption in most discussions of ethnic representation
in Australia is that a person from a particular group is better able to
represent members from that same group (Jupp 1989). This explains the
dominance of the 'mirror representation' approach to questions of ethnic
representation in public policy (Office of Multicultural Affairs 1989,
1991, 1996; National Multicultural Advisory Council 1995). The idea behind
mirror or microcosmic representation is that any representative
body should reflect the different groups in society to more or less the
same proportion that those groups exist in the wider population.(9) It
is in this sense that many commentators (both popular and academic) argue
that the political system in Australia is 'unrepresentative' with respect
to ethnicity. As one leading exponent of this view in Australia has argued:
...Parliamentary politics is completely dominated by those born and
bred in Australia, usually of British or Australian parenthood, and,
therefore, not 'representative' of a large part of the electorate (Jupp
1988, 162).
Why is microcosmic representation considered to be important?(10) First,
as was mentioned above, supporters of mirror representation assume that
an elected representative who is also from a particular group in society
will be more responsive and empathetic to the wishes of constituents from
that same group than a representative who is not. To slightly twist the
earlier metaphor, supporters argue that spaghetti should be happy if linguini
are elected because they are both pasta and will therefore be better able
to understand and represent the issues of concern to pasta. In contrast
to studies of the role of gender in representation, however, the small
number of MPs from NESB in Federal Parliament has precluded tests of this
assumption with respect to ethnicity. A second and perhaps more important
reason in favour of mirror representation regards the legitimacy of the
political system. The probability that there will be a legitimacy crisis
in the political system is seen to be more likely in an era where global
population movements have made ethnic diversity in Western democracies
the norm rather than the exception (Rothschild 1981). As Kymlicka (1995,
150) has argued:
Citizens who do not see themselves reflected in the legislature may
become alienated from the political process and question its legitimacy.
If not the only route to representation, legislative representation
is a uniquely important one, and the desire to be adequately represented
in it must be taken seriously.
In conclusion, although there may be broader system-wide reasons to have
a legislature which better reflects Australia's ethnic diversity, the
jury is still out on whether MPs from ethnic backgrounds better represent
ethnic constituents. This is implicit in the second category of Jupp et
al's (1989) ethnic representative typology, namely, one who is sensitive
and responsive to NESB voters although not from a NESB herself. Although
the difficulty of testing the assumptions behind mirror representation
have led some to argue that the issue will remain confined to the realms
of philosophical debate (Birch 1971, 126; Wolgast 1991), the data explored
below sheds some light, albeit tentative, on this debate.
The four types of representational responsiveness that were outlined
earlier are likely to require different methods to examine them. For instance,
the dominant mode of studying representation has been through structured
questionnaires of elected representatives. This method has in many ways
determined what issues political scientists have focused on. If one asks
a set of closed-ended questions which conform to previous typologies of
delegate, trustee and partisan, one is likely to receive confirmation
of such ideal types. Studying policy responsiveness also requires a knowledge
of constituent as well as their respective representative's attitudes
to a similar range of issues. In contrast, studying representational 'home
style' or service and allocation responsiveness is best done through more
qualitative techniques, from semi-structured interviews to ethnographic
case studies (Fenno 1978; Jewell 1982; Zappal 1997).
Symbolic responsiveness could be examined in several ways. First, by
observing the behaviour of MPs in their constituencies (the local face
of representation). It has been argued elsewhere that representational
activity (ethnic and otherwise) at this level has been largely ignored
in Australian political science (Zappal 1997). Symbolic responsiveness
by MPs at the constituency level with respect to ethnic communities, for
instance, is demonstrated by such things as being present at their community
functions, weddings or national days. Such actions are not simply variants
of 'baby kissing' activity, but play an important role in building up
support amongst the ethnic sub-constituency of the electorate. Such actions
show the ethnic communities in the electorate that they are seen as a
legitimate part of the Australian polity and society (Zappal 1997).
Another way of examining the responsiveness of MPs' with respect to their
ethnic constituents is to observe MPs' behaviour and interventions in
the Parliament. Recent research suggests that the official face of representation
continues to play an important role and link in how constituents view
their MPs' representational performance (Marsh 1995, 38-9; 1996). Some
MPs, for instance, distribute copies of their Hansard interventions to
constituents to illustrate that they have raised issues which reflect
their needs and concerns, especially as regards ethnic communities (Zappal
1997). A recent example of the importance of Parliamentary behaviour on
public opinion towards ethnic related issues was the dramatic decrease
in support for the Independent MP for the electorate of Oxley after a
bi-partisan motion condemning her views on immigration and multiculturalism
was passed in Parliament.(11) In brief, constituent trust and confidence
in their elected representatives is influenced by their Parliamentary
behaviour. Particularly in the case of conspicuously ethnic electorates
parliamentary interventions which may praise the contributions made by
immigrants, or raise issues of concern to ethnic communities, is an important
type of what has been termed parliamentary responsiveness.
In order to examine parliamentary responsiveness on ethnic constituents
the parliamentary interventions of MPs representing 22 Federal electorates
were analysed for the period 1983 to 1996.(12) The electorates were chosen
in order to have two roughly equal groups of 'ethnic' and 'non-ethnic'
electorates. It was thought to be more valuable for the nature of the
exercise to restrict the choice of electorates to those where the MP was
not a Minister, Shadow Minister or Speaker of the House, as research has
shown that they are much less likely to spend time in constituency related
activities (Studlar and McAllister 1996, 81). Furthermore, their parliamentary
interventions are more likely to be concerned with their portfolio policies.
Table 1: Characteristics of the ethnic electorates in the study
Electorate % born Ethnicity State Party 2PP in
in NESC rank 1993(a)
Fowler 44.5 1 NSW ALP 72.0
Grayndler 39.0 2 NSW ALP 72.8
Prospect 37.8 4 NSW ALP 69.0
Reid 34.2 8 NSW ALP 68.8
Lowe 31.0 11 NSW ALP/Lib 55.0
Calwell 29.3 16 Victoria ALP 68.4
Bruce 28.7 17 Victoria Liberal 55.1
Menzies 23.0 20 Victoria Liberal 59.2
Wentworth 22.8 21 NSW Liberal 55.5
Chisholm 22.2 22 Victoria Liberal 52.9
Greenway 21.3 24 NSW ALP 63.4
(a) Shows the two-party preferred vote in the 1993 Federal election.
Source: as for Appendix 1.
This criteria made the task of ensuring a sufficient number of highly
'ethnic' electorates problematic as most of the previous government's
Cabinet (including the Prime Ministers) in the period studied were from
such electorates. This also made ensuring a balance between party representation
difficult as most highly ethnic electorates are safe Labor seats. A random
selection from the 48 'ethnic' electorates in Appendix 1 was therefore
not appropriate. Ethnic electorates were instead chosen in rank order
of ethnicity with the proviso that the incumbent/s was not or had not
been a Minister. In some cases this meant restricting the content analysis
of some electorates to particular years within the thirteen year period.
Overall, twelve 'ethnic' electorates were examined, the lowest in terms
of ethnicity being Chifley. Eight were from NSW and four from Victoria.
Seven were held by the Labor party for the whole period studied, four
predominantly by the Liberal party, and one evenly by both parties. The
'ethnic electorates' which formed part of the study are shown in table
1.
In contrast, the non-ethnic electorates were chosen randomly from two
separate categories: non-ethnic urban and rural electorates.(13) The one
exception was the deliberate inclusion of the electorate of Bowman to
see the effect of having an ethnic MP in a non-ethnic electorate. Overall,
ten non-ethnic electorates were included in the analysis. As can be seen
in table 2 these electorates had a better spread across state, party and
urban/rural lines. Two electorates came from each mainland state, while
three were predominantly held by the ALP, three by the Liberal Party,
two by the Nationals and two were evenly mixed between the ALP and Liberal
parties. Similarly, five of the ten electorates were rural while five
were urban or outer metropolitan.
Table 2: Characteristics of the non-ethnic electorates in the study
Electorate % born in State Urban/rural Party 2PP in 1993
NESC
Bendigo 2.7 Victoria Rural ALP/Lib 50.1
Dawson 4.5 Q'land Rural National 53.8
Wakefield 4.9 SA Rural Liberal 67.0
Riverina 4.9 NSW Rural National 62.9
Bowman 6.0 Q'land Urban ALP 57.4
Moore 9.7 WA Urban ALP/Lib 58.7
Boothby 10.0 SA Urban Liberal 57.8
Canning 10.2 WA Urban ALP 50.2
Burke 10.5 Victoria Rural ALP 60.0
Berowra 13.9 NSW Urban Liberal 62.2
Source: as for Appendix 1.
The analysis followed five main procedures:
1. Using the on-line Historical Hansard records contained in the Parliamentary
Data Base Service (PDBS) of the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
the total interventions (questions and speeches) of the MPs from each
of the above electorates was calculated for each year to give an annual
denominator.
2. Using a key word search facility, all interventions which involved
an explicit reference to an ethnic related issue were classified according
to whether they were predominantly: a) a general ethnic issue (e.g. a
speech on multiculturalism or immigration); b) a constituency ethnic issue
(e.g. a reference to matters which directly related to the MP's ethnic
constituents in his or her electorate); c) a homeland politics issue (e.g.
interventions which related to some aspect of an overseas country because
that MP's electorate contained a significant number of people from that
country). Table 3 lists some examples for each type of issue to illustrate
how the coding was done.
3. Placing all the ethnic interventions in any given year (point 2) over
the total number of all interventions for that same year (point 1) gave
what is termed the raw ethnic reference ratio for that year. For
instance, if an MP made 20 interventions in 1984 (point 1) and 5 were
ethnic related (point 2), then they had a raw ethnic reference ratio of
25 per cent in 1984.
Table 3: Example of how ethnic interventions by MPs were classified
in the content analysis
Type of issue Electorate Type of intervention Example
Constituency ethnic Riverina Speech, 30/5/91 ...on the contribution
issue of Australians of
Italian descent
Constituency ethnic Lowe Speech in adjournment ...appeal to the
issue debate, 10/5/83 Minister for
Immigration re the case
of a Lebanese
constituent
General ethnic issue Calwell Speech/Bill, 27/3/85 ...major speech on
multicultural affairs
and the need for
representation of
ethnic communities
General ethnic issue Bowman Speech, 25/8/88 ...concern over
apparent racism in
immigration debate
Homeland politics Reid Speech, 25/11/93 ...condemnation of the
USSR for treatment of
Ukrainians making
reference to
constituents of
Ukrainian origin in his
electorate
Homeland politics Fowler Speech, 18/2/91 ...referring to
constituents of
Croatian origin making
an appeal for Australia
and the West not to
ignore their plight
Source: Hansard content analysis. All interventions were entered on specially
formatted sheets listing the electorate, year and name of MP, the type
of issue, the type of intervention including a page reference to the Hansard,
and a brief summary of the issue.
4. To further refine the analysis a second ratio, the adjusted ethnic
reference ratio was computed. This involved two separate steps: a)
subtracting any portfolio related interventions of the MP. For instance,
the member for Lowe was Shadow Minister for Health in 1991 and 1992. Any
interventions which were health related in these years were therefore
subtracted from the denominator; b) the ethnic related interventions were
weighted according to their significance on a three point scale: they
scored a '1' where the intervention was wholly or substantially ethnic
related; a '0.5' where it was partly ethnic related but relatively substantial;
and '0.25' where it was a small or passing reference to an ethnic issue.
The weighted ethnic references over the portfolio adjusted total interventions
gives the adjusted ethnic reference ratio. Unless otherwise stated, the
discussion below always refers to the adjusted ratio.
5. The computed annual ratios were then plotted over time for each electorate
in order to trace any within electorate change. A single score based on
an average of the adjusted ethnic reference ratios over time was then
computed for each electorate in order to allow an across electorate comparison
(see Figure 1).(14)
Several limitations of the method warrant comment. First, in spite of
the attempts to quantify ethnic references over time, it should be remembered
that it remains a crude and imprecise measure and as such is an approximation
of the degree of parliamentary responsiveness to ethnic constituents.
Much of the richness of qualitative data is lost in quantification exercises
such as this. Second, the boundaries between the three categories of ethnic
issues (constituency, general and homeland politics) were often blurred
and a degree of researcher bias was inevitable although a consistent approach
was maintained. Third, as with the categorisation of issues, the weighting
process should be seen as a crude rather than precise measure. Fourth,
the figures and tables do not indicate whether the MP was in fact critical
of ethnic communities or ethnic related issues such. While such cases
were relatively rare one might correctly argue that they indicate a lack
of responsiveness to ethnic constituents.(15) In this sense, there may
be some over-estimation of the degree of ethnic responsiveness. Fifth,
the group of electorates represents only 15 per cent of all Federal electorates
and as already noted is not a truly random sample.(16) Casting the net
wider may reveal a different picture. Finally, it should be remembered
that the study focuses only on the official face of representation. An
MP from an ethnic electorate, for instance, may perform poorly with respect
to this measure of responsiveness in the Parliament but may nevertheless
play an active role in ethnic issues while in the constituency arena.
The remaining section of the paper discusses the main findings of the
analysis.
The aggregate results of the Hansard content analysis of the twenty-two
electorates are presented in figure 1. The electorates are presented from
left to right in descending order of ethnicity. The percentage of people
in the electorate born in non-English speaking countries (NESC) (left
axis) is represented by the dark jagged line and shading in the background.
The electorate of Fowler, for instance, is the most ethnic electorate
with almost 45 per cent of people born in NESCs. At the other extreme
is the electorate of Bendigo with under 3 per cent of people born in a
NESC. The column above each electorate shows the average number of non-portfolio
interventions. The line joined by the black squares is the average adjusted
ethnic reference ratio for the electorate over the period analysed. For
example, we can see from Figure 1 that the Member for Fowler averaged
just over ten non-portfolio interventions per year (right hand axis) and
had an average ethnic reference ratio of about 12 per cent (also left
axis). Similarly, the electorate of Calwell had just under 30 per cent
of people born in NESCs, its member averaged about 25 non-portfolio interventions
per annum, but had an overall ethnic reference ratio of 38 per cent (the
highest for the group).
Figure 1: The average adjusted ethnic reference ratio for all electorates
What emerges from this aggregate picture? First, it would appear that
representatives from ethnic electorates have higher degrees of responsiveness
with respect to their ethnic constituents as measured by the ethnic reference
ratio compared to representatives from the non-ethnic electorates. In
other words, there appears to be an ethnic electorate effect on the parliamentary
behaviour of MPs. Second, three electorates stand out as having an ethnic
reference ratio higher than the proportion of ethnic constituents in their
electorates: Calwell, Bowman and Riverina. Explanations for this finding
are discussed below. Third, there would appear to be a greater degree
of variation in the ethnic reference ratio amongst the group of ethnic
electorates compared to the non-ethnic group (compare Fowler, Calwell
and Menzies for example).
This is not the only story however. Another way of interpreting the data
in figure 1 is to examine the number of ethnic references with respect
to the actual proportion of people from NESB in the electorate. For instance,
the proportion born in a NESC in Lowe was 31 per cent. This would suggest
that if there was to be a perfect congruence in terms of parliamentary
responsiveness, the ethnic reference ratio would also be or approximate
31 per cent. A perfect congruence between the proportion of ethnic references
and the proportion of ethnic constituents, would mean that dividing the
former by the latter would give a score of one.
This is not to suggest that perfect ethnic representation or responsiveness
involves the exact mirroring of parliamentary interventions with the ethnic
composition of the electorate. This measure (the proportion of the ethnic
population of the electorate divided by the adjusted ethnic reference
ratio), however, provides a benchmark against which the degree of ethnic
responsiveness can be compared. The further from 'one' is this measure,
which is termed the ethnic distance ratio, the less responsive
(in parliamentary terms) it can be argued, is the electorate's representative/s
to their ethnic constituents. Put simply, the ethnic distance ratio is
the visual gap in figure 1 between the ethnic reference ratio line and
the dark jagged line which shows the percentage of people born in NESC
in the electorate. Table 4 gives the ethnic distance ratios for the individual
electorates as well as the mean for the two groups of electorates. The
figures in Table 4 not only confirm the variation that exists between
electorates within the ethnic and non-ethnic groups but they also suggest
a different picture with respect to the responsiveness of representatives
to their ethnic constituents.
Table 4: The ethnic distance ratio of the electorates
Ethnic electorates Non-ethnic electorates
Electorate Ethnic distance Electorate Ethnic distance
ratio(a) ratio
Fowler 3.65 Bendigo 2.54
Grayndler 1.87 Dawson 1.44
Prospect 3.09 Wakefield 3.62
Reid 1.61 Riverina 0.77
Lowe 1.70 Bowman 0.85
Calwell 0.77 Moore 1.45
Bruce 2.98 Boothby 3.89
Menzies 10.64 Canning 6.21
Wentworth 2.10 Burke 4.70
Chisholm 4.22 Berowra 2.0
Greenway 5.47
Chifley 4.61
mean 3.55 2.74
(a) The EDR was derived by dividing the proportion of people born in
NESCs in the electorate by the adjusted average reference ratio.
Across group differences
Bearing in mind the data related caveats raised previously, representatives
from the non-ethnic electorates have a mean ethnic distance ratio closer
to one, suggesting a better parliamentary responsiveness to their ethnic
constituents than those from ethnic electorates. Figure 2 plots the electorates
in rank order of their ethnic distance ratio. Those electorates which
are closer to 1 on the vertical axis are those whose members' interventions
in Parliament better reflected the proportion of ethnic constituents in
their electorates. Viewing the data in this manner suggests that there
is less of an ethnic electorate effect on representatives' parliamentary
behaviour. Two of the three most ethnically responsive seats (Riverina
and Bowman), for instance, have a relatively small proportion of people
born in NESCs. In contrast, seven of the twelve ethnic electorates are
all to the right hand side (lower responsiveness) of the median.
Figure 2: The ethnic distance ratio of the electorates in rank order
Within group differences
Looking at the ethnic electorates, the findings suggest that the majority
of electorates perform quite badly on this measure. The electorates of
Fowler, Prospect, Bruce, Chisholm, Greenway, Chifley, and in particular,
Menzies, all have large distance ratios. This suggests that not all the
representatives of the so-called ethnic electorates are reflecting their
ethnic constituents in proportion to their numbers in the electorate.
For example, if the most ethnic electorate, Fowler, were to have had the
same distance ratio as the second least ethnic electorate, Dawson, the
ethnic reference ratio for Fowler should have been approximately 30 per
cent rather than 12 per cent. In absolute terms, Fowler may be considered
more responsive because it had a higher ethnic reference ratio than say
Dawson, but in relative terms, Dawson is more responsive because it has
a smaller ethnic distance ratio. Within the non-ethnic electorates, only
four had distance ratios above the median, and as was noted two of the
three best performers were from this group.
In the opening section of the paper several variables other than the
ethnic composition of the electorate were thought likely to influence
the representational behaviour of MPs. While the method of this study
does not allow us to isolate and control the relative influence of such
variables, several observations are nevertheless possible.
The marginality hypothesis
This hypothesis suggests that we may observe better responsiveness, as
measured by our ethnic reference ratio in marginal rather than safe electorates.
As with other tests of this hypothesis, the findings are somewhat mixed.
Several points stand out. First, the figures in table 5, which gives the
ethnic distance ratios of those electorates classified as marginal (post
the 1993 election) suggests that marginality may be of greater importance
amongst the ethnic electorates.
Table 5: The ethnic distance ratios of the marginal electorates
Marginal Ethnic Ethnic distance Marginal Ethnic distance
Electorates ratio non-ethnic ratio
electorate
Lowe 1.70 Dawson 1.44
Wentworth 2.10 Bendigo 2.54
Bruce 2.98 Canning 6.21
Chisholm 4.22
mean 2.75 mean 3.39
The mean ethnic distance ratio of the four marginal ethnic electorates,
for instance, is almost one unit lower than that for all the ethnic electorates.
In contrast, that for the non-ethnic marginal electorates is higher than
the mean ethnic distance ratio for all the non-ethnic electorates. This
finding is consistent with the idea that in single-member geographical
constituencies, the relationship of the representative to particular groups
is likely to be stronger if the group is a significant force in the electorate
(Jewell 1982, 116-7). Members in marginal electorates which have a high
proportion of ethnic constituents (especially from the same ethnic community)
are therefore more likely to try to appeal to those communities in their
representational activities. Second, there is some evidence of outlier
effects. For instance, removing the electorate of Chisholm from the ethnic
group and that of Canning from the non-ethnic group would lend greater
overall support to the marginality hypothesis. Nevertheless, with the
exception of some individual electorates (Dawson and Lowe) there appears
to be no strong pattern between marginality and ethnic responsiveness.
The party effect
As was noted earlier, a problem with attempting to isolate any partisan
effect is the fact that most of the highly ethnic electorates are mostly
held by the ALP. It was also noted that there has been substantial debate
over whether this Labor dominance is reflective of these electorates'
class or ethnic composition. As with marginality there are no clear patterns
although several observations can be made. Within the ethnic group of
electorates, the two Liberal only electorates (Bruce and Wentworth), did
considerably better (in terms of ethnic distance ratio) than many of the
Labor only seats within the group. In contrast, two of the five electorates
within this group which have had substantial representation by the Liberal
party (Menzies and Chisholm) have low levels of responsiveness. It is
fair to say, however, that the poorest performer of all the electorates
studied, Menzies, had a consistently low ethnic reference ratio in both
its Labor and Liberal periods. It is also the case that some of the best
performers (Calwell, Grayndler, Reid) were all held by Labor during the
period. At the same time, however, one can point to the poor performance
of Labor electorates such as Fowler, Prospect, Greenway and Chifley.
Within the non-ethnic electorates, a somewhat surprising result is the
strong performance of the National Party, with two of the three most responsive
electorates (Riverina and Dawson) being held by representatives from the
National Party. The result of Riverina can perhaps be explained by the
fact that although it only has 5 per cent of its population born in a
NESC, there is a strong and long settled Italian community concentrated
in and around the town of Griffith. The content analysis suggested that
this was an important factor in the nature of the Riverina member's ethnic
related interventions. The Italian community in the Riverina are substantial
stake holders in the business undertakings in the area and have developed
several avenues of political participation (Kelly 1984, 126-38). The result
for Riverina once again lends support to the idea that a minority group
in a single member electorate is likely to have a bigger influence on
the elected representative when they are a significant force in the electorate.
This finding also suggests that it may not be the ethnicity of the electorate
(in terms of absolute proportions) which is important in influencing representational
behaviour, but the relative importance (both numerical and economic) of
any one particular ethnic group relative to the rest of the electorate.(17)
Once again, no clear patterns emerge with respect to the two major parties
in the non-ethnic group, with Labor holding both one of the most responsive
seats (Bowman), and the least responsive of the group (Canning). Similarly,
the Liberals held the seat of Berowra, with a good responsiveness ratio,
while also holding those of Boothby and Wakefield, with relatively poor
ratios. Overall, with some key exceptions (which as suggested below are
more likely to be associated with non-party factors), there is no strong
evidence which suggests that Labor members are more responsive to ethnic
issues than their Coalition counterparts. If the ALP has been more adept
at wooing the ethnic vote in the past, therefore, this analysis suggests
that it has more likely occurred at the constituency level.
The ethnic MP effect
One of the assumptions made by supporters of mirror representation is
that MPs from an ethnic background are better able to represent constituents
from a similar background. Bearing in mind the above noted caveats, this
proposition is supported by the findings. Two of the three most responsive
electorates (Calwell and Bowman) had representatives who were both born
in a NESC. Both had ethnic reference ratios higher than the proportion
of NESB constituents in their electorates. The member for Calwell, Dr
Andrew Theophanous is a well known advocate of ethnic rights and immigration
and was influential in the shaping of the previous government's policy
on multiculturalism.(18)
The member for Bowman between 1987 and 1995 was Con Sciacca, the first
Italian born member of the House of Representatives. Prior to his entry,
the previous member's ethnic reference ratio was zero. Sciacca's adjusted
ethnic reference ratio in his first year, however, was almost 37 per cent
and 25 per cent in his penultimate year. Both these cases suggest that
the ethnicity of the MP is an important influence in their representational
behaviour with respect to ethnic Australians.(19) The word 'Australians'
rather than 'constituents' was used because the findings suggest that
they are taking on representational roles which extend beyond the geographical
confines of their immediate electorates. Such behaviour by representatives
from minority groups have been found in other countries, and is generally
referred to as adopting an 'areal' role, or where the member's relationship
to a particular group (in this case ethnic Australians) extends beyond
the boundaries of a particular district or electorate (Jewell 1983, 312-3).
Such representatives usually serve as spokespeople for these interests
within the Parliament and the wider political arena.
That MPs from ethnic background should adopt such attitudes and behaviour
is not surprising given that there have been so few in Federal Parliament.
Often such a role is imposed on them by others in the party who feel a
nation-wide 'ethnic leader' will improve the party's image with ethnic
voters, but more often than not, it is self imposed by the MPs' themselves
who feel they have a duty to represent all people from ethnic backgrounds.
As Jewell (1982, 94) found with representatives from ethnic minority groups
in the US:
They are frequently contacted by individuals and groups belonging to
that minority from other parts of the metropolitan area, nearby counties,
or other parts of the state. They often feel a particular sense of responsibility
to represent the interests of that minority throughout the state.
This is not to suggest that they only represent ethnic constituents to
the detriment of others in their electorates. Nevertheless, it is likely
that if the presence of MPs from ethnic backgrounds in the Federal Parliament
does not increase, especially from what have been termed ethnic electorates,
then as Jewell (1982, 94) concluded: 'minority legislators are likely
to continue to be perceived as representing a constituency that is broader
than the district'.
The type of ethnic issues
Was there any pattern with respect to the type of ethnic interventions
MPs made? As was noted earlier, interventions were categorised according
to whether the issue primarily related to a general ethnic issue, a constituency
ethnic issue or homeland politics. Although the latter is strictly speaking
also a constituency issue, the distinction was made to assess whether
MPs' views on foreign affairs issues are influenced by having constituents
who originate from particular areas in their electorate. It is likely,
however, that the figures on homeland politics are underestimated as it
was not always possible to establish whether an intervention which supported
or criticised another country or event therein was motivated by constituency
pressures.(20) In most 'homeland politics' cases, however, members would
often refer to the constituency link, which made classification easier.
Otherwise, electorate specific data based on the 1991 census was consulted
prior to the analysis in order to establish the main ethnic groups present
in each electorate.
Table 6: The type of ethnic issues in the ethnic electorates
Electorate General Ethnic Constituency Homeland Politics
Issue (%) Ethnic Issue (%) Issue (%)
Fowler 19 13 69
Grayndler 75 25 -
Prospect 56 26 18
Reid 51 24 25
Lowe 41 49 10
Calwell 83 3 14
Bruce 63 6 31
Menzies 63 - 38
Wentworth 24 14 62
Chisholm 80 13 7
Greenway 40 40 20
Chifley 76 21 3
Total 58 21 21
Source: Hansard content analysis, unweighted interventions.
Tables 6 and 7 show the proportion of 'issue types' for the ethnic and
non-ethnic group of electorates. Several interesting findings emerge.
First, although general ethnic issues are the most frequent type of intervention
in both groups, there is a much stronger constituency focus in the group
of ethnic electorates (42 per cent of all interventions) than in the non-ethnic
group (20 per cent of all interventions). This greater constituency focus
is consistent with the high proportion of ethnic constituents in these
electorates. Second, there again appears to be some support for the marginality
hypothesis in that most of the marginal electorates have a higher 'constituency'
related intervention (Lowe and Dawson for example). Third, interventions
relating to homeland politics is primarily an issue in ethnic electorates.
Once again, this is not particularly surprising. The data do reveal, however,
that the degree to which homeland politics issues are raised varies considerably
across electorates within the ethnic group, suggesting that this issue
may require further research.(21) Finally, and most importantly, the findings
in tables 5 and 6 support the hypothesis that the ethnicity of the MP
does make a difference. The dominance of the general ethnic issue type
for both Calwell in the ethnic group (the highest at 83 per cent) and
Bowman in the non-ethnic group (100 per cent) further supports the idea
discussed above that ethnic representatives take on an 'areal' as opposed
to a constituency based role to representation. They become (willingly
or not) national representatives and symbols for Australians of ethnic
background.
Table 7: The type of ethnic issues in the non-ethnic electorates
Electorate General Ethnic Constituency Homeland Politics
Issue (%) Ethnic Issue (%) Issue (%)
Bendigo 100 - -
Dawson 39 56 5
Wakefield 67 33 -
Riverina 61 22 17
Bowman 100 - -
Moore 70 18 12
Boothby 90 10 -
Canning 91 9 -
Burke 89 11 -
Berowra 100 - -
Total 80 16 4
Source: As for table 6.
Political representation is an activity and an institution which connects
the people to the government (Schwartz 1988, 1). It is now generally accepted
that to fully understand the process of representation, it must be viewed
as a series of activities which involves the representative being responsive
to his or her constituents. Reviewing the literature over a decade ago,
Jewell (1983, 329) concluded that too much work had been done on the delegate/trustee
dichotomy and not enough on the complexities of representation in modern
democracies, especially the representation of minorities. A key complexity
in many societies, including Australia, has been the increasing ethnic
diversity of its citizenry. This was illustrated by the fact that 48 of
Australia's 148 Federal electorates can be classified as 'ethnic'. Studies
of representation in Australia continue to be within the delegate/trustee
mould, while those on ethnic representation are virtually non-existent.
This paper began with the assumption that ethnicity influences representational
behaviour in two ways: first, the ethnicity of the electorate and second,
the ethnicity of the representative. It set out to explore the effect
of ethnicity on the degree of responsiveness of MPs in their official
arena or face of representation. Based on a content analysis of parliamentary
interventions over time several tentative conclusions can be made. First,
the ethnicity of the electorate does have an influence on ethnic responsiveness
in absolute terms but less so in relative terms. In other words, MPs from
ethnic electorates generally make more ethnic related interventions than
MPs from non-ethnic electorates, but not as much as the proportion of
ethnic constituents in these electorates would suggest they should make.
The ethnicity of the electorate also influences the type of ethnic issues
MPs make, with those from ethnic seats more likely to make constituency
related issues. Second, the marginality of the seat, especially in ethnic
electorates would appear to have a bigger influence on the degree and
type of responsiveness than the political party to which the representative
belongs. Finally, the ethnicity of the MP does have an influence in both
the degree and type of ethnic responsiveness. The findings suggest, albeit
tentative, that spaghetti should rejoice when linguini are elected!
Bennett, S. 1989, Aborigines and Political Power, Sydney: Allen
and Unwin.
Birch, A.H. 1971, Representation, London: Pall Mall Press.
Bottomley, G. 1992, From Another Place, Melbourne: Cambridge University
Press.
Brennan, F. 1995, One Land, One Nation, St. Lucia: University
of Queensland Press.
Converse, P.E., & R. Pierce. 1986, Political Representation in
France, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Crewe, I. 1985, 'MPs and their constituents in Britain: how strong
are the links?' In Representatives of the People?, ed. V. Bogdanor,
Aldershot: Gower/PSI.
Economou, N. 1994, 'An overstated electoral importance? A note on 'ethnic'
voting and Federal electoral outcomes', People and Place, vol.2,
no.4, pp.45-51.
Economou, N. 1995, 'Influencing ethnic voters - Class interest or ethnic
loyalty?', Australian Rationalist, vol.38, pp.28-33.
Emy, H.V. 1974, The Politics of Australian Democracy, Melbourne: Macmillan.
Eulau, H & P.D. Karps. 1977, 'The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying
Components of Responsiveness', Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol.2,
pp.233-54.
Fenno, R.F. 1978, Home Style - House Members in their Districts,
Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Forrest, J. 1988, 'Social Status, urbanisation and the ethnic dimension
of voting behaviour in Australia', Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol.11,
no.4, pp. 489-505.
Foster, L & D. Stockley. 1988, Australian Multiculturalism: A
documentary History and Critique, Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters.
Goot, M. 1993, 'Multiculturalists, monoculturalists and the many in between:
Attitudes to cultural diversity and their correlates', Australia and
New Zealand Journal of Sociology, vol.29, no.2, pp.226-53.
Grofman, B. 1982, 'Should Representatives be typical of their Constituents?'
In Representation and Redistricting Issues, ed. B. Grofman., A.
Lijphart., R.B. McKay., & H.A. Scarrow, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Jewell, M.E. 1982, Representation in State Legislatures, Lexington:
University Press of Kentucky.
Jewell, M.E. 1983, 'Legislator-Constituency Relations and the Representative
Process', Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 8, no.3, pp.
303-37.
Jupp, J (ed.). 1989, The Challenge of Diversity, Canberra: AGPS.
Jupp, J. 1988, 'The defused issues: Ethnic and Aboriginal Affairs' In
Australia Votes, ed. I. McAllister and J. Warhurst, Melbourne:
Longman Cheshire.
Jupp, J. 1996, '1996 Federal Election - the Ethnic Dimension', FECCA
1996 Federal Election Kit.
Jupp, J., B. York., & A. McRobbie. 1989, The Political Participation
of Ethnic Minorities in Australia, Canberra: AGPS.
Kelly, B. 1984, 'Ethnic participation in Australian political systems:
a Griffith case study' In Ethnic Politics in Australia, ed. J.
Jupp, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Kymlicka, W. 1995, Multicultural Citizenship - A liberal theory of minority
rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Maddox, G. 1996 (3rd ed.), Australian Democracy in Theory and Practice,
Melbourne: Longman.
Marsh, I. & J. Uhr (eds). 1995, Party Systems, Representation and
Policy Making: Australian Trends in Comparative Perspective, Special issue
of the Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 30.
Marsh, I. 1995, Beyond the Two Party System, Melbourne: Cambridge
University Press.
Marsh, I. 1996, 'Representation and Parliament', paper presented at the
Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference, ANU, 20-21 November.
McAllister, I. 1988, 'Ethnic issues and voting in the 1987 federal election',
Politics, vol.23, no.2, pp.219-47.
McAllister, I. 1992, Political Behaviour, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
McAllister, I. 1993a, 'Public opinion, multiculturalism, and political
behaviour in Australia', In Multicultural Citizens - the Philosophy
and Politics of Identity, ed. C. Kukathas, St. Leonards:CIS.
McAllister, I. 1993b, 'Immigration, bipartisanship and public opinion'
In The Politics of Australian Immigration, eds. J. Jupp & M.
Kabala, Canberra: AGPS.
McAllister, I., & T. Makkai. 1991, 'The formation and development
of party loyalties: patterns among Australian immigrants', Australia
& New Zealand Journal of Sociology, vol.27, no.2, pp.195-217.
McAllister, I. & D. T. Studlar. 1992, 'Gender and Representation
among Legislative Candidates in Australia', Comparative Political Studies,
vol. 25, no.3, pp.388-411.
National Multicultural Advisory Council. 1995, The Next Steps: Multicultural
Australia, Towards and Beyond 2000, Canberra: AGPS.
Norton, P., & D.M. Wood. 1993, Back From Westminster - British Members
of Parliament and Their Constituents, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.
Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA). 1989, The National Agenda for
a Multicultural Australia, Canberra: AGPS.
OMA. 1991, Making it Happen: Access and Equity at Work and Around Australia,
Canberra: AGPS.
OMA. 1996, Our Nation, Canberra: AGPS.
Pennock, J. Roland. 1979, Democratic Political Theory, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Pitkin, H.F. 1972, The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Rothschild, J. 1981, Ethnopolitics - A Conceptual Framework,
New York: Colombia University Press.
Sawer, M. & M.Simms. 1984, A Woman's Place - Women and Politics
in Australia, Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.
Sawer, M. & D. Zetlin. 1996, 'Gender, Citizenship and Representation',
paper presented at the Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference, ANU,
20-21 November.
Schwartz, N.L. 1988, The Blue Guitar - Political Representation and
Community, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Studlar, D.T., & I. McAllister. 1994, 'The Electoral Connection in
Australia: Candidate Roles, Campaign Activity, and the Popular Vote',
Political Behaviour, vol.16, no.3, pp. 385-410.
Studlar, D.T., & I. McAllister. 1996, 'Constituency Activity and
Representational Roles among Australian Legislators', The Journal of
Politics, vol.58, no.1, pp.69-90.
Theophanous, A & M. Stavrou Michael. 1990, 'The role of the Greek
communities in the formulation of Australian foreign policy' In Diasporas
in World Politics: the Greeks in Comparative Perspective, eds. D.C.
Constas & A.G. Platias, London: Macmillan.
Theophanous, A. 1995, Understanding Multiculturalism and Australian Identity,
Melbourne: Elikia Books.
Wahlke, J.C., H. Eulau., W. Buchanan., & L.C. Ferguson. 1962, The
Legislative System, New York: Wiley.
Wolgast, E. 1991, 'The Virtue of a Representative', Social Theory
and Practice, vol.17.no.2, pp.273-93.
Zappal, G. 1997, The Influence of Ethnicity on Representational Behaviour
in Australian Federal Politics, Political Studies Fellow Monograph No.4,
Canberra: AGPS (forthcoming).
- Ethnic or ethnicity refers to Australians of non-English speaking
background (NESB). A distinction is also made between people born in
non-English speaking countries (NESBI) and their Australian born children
(NESBII). While the concept of ethnicity is more complex than this it
provides a useful working definition which is consistent with its usage
in public policy.
- This paper is part of a wider project investigating how the ethnicity
of the Australian electorate influences the nature of political representation,
see Zappal (1997).
- This in fact corresponds to the finding by Emy (1974, 474) that MPs
recognised three general sources of satisfaction in their work, related
to their legislative, electoral and party work.
- The postwar immigration program has made Australia one of the most
ethnically diverse countries in the world. Almost one quarter of Australians
were born overseas, with those born in NESCs making up 14 per cent of
the population. Twenty-two per cent of Australians were either born
in a NESC or had one or both parents born in a NESC.
- Such electorates are termed 'ethnic electorates' throughout this paper.
While such a cut-off point is arbitrary it closely corresponds to the
proportion of people being born in a NESC at the national level.
- A possible explanation for this finding is that MPs from safe districts
correlate better with their constituents' preferences because they have
more time to learn the preferences of their constituents, see Pennock
(1979, 317).
- In contrast, Economou (1995) has argued that a strong primary vote
for the ALP in 'ethnic seats' is not simply the product of the ALP being
more sensitive to 'ethnic' demands relative to other political parties
but a reflection of the class basis of ethnic voters.
- Even Economou (1995, 29) has argued that 'certainly policy matters
pertaining to the interests of NESB Australians would be keenly appreciated
in these areas' (ie ethnic electorates).
- Other terms used in the literature to mean the same thing include
descriptive or statistical representation.
- For arguments on how to achieve mirror representation as well as some
of the theoretical and practical problems associated with it see Kymlicka
(1995, Chs 2 and 7).
- One survey, for example, suggested that the proportion of radio talkback
callers supporting the anti-immigration and anti-multicultural MP fell
from 63 to 33 per cent after Parliament passed the bi-partisan motion,
Sydney Morning Herald, 2 November 1996.
- The 1996 year only includes the first sitting period of the year which
ended on 27 June 1996.
- There were no rural electorates with more than 15 per cent of the
population born in NESC.
- Annual results are not reproduced here although are available on request
from the author.
- In general, they related to interventions by Coalition MPs which criticised
aspects of the Labor party's approach to multiculturalism rather than
multiculturalism itself. Furthermore, such interventions were often
prefaced by remarks that they were also speaking on behalf of their
ethnic constituents.
- The ethnic electorates in the study, however, constitute one quarter
of all 'ethnic electorates'.
- This was also found to be the case in a study of service responsiveness
in an ethnic electorate where two ethnic groups made much greater use
of the services of the Federal MP, see Zappal (1997).
- See, for instance, Theophanous (1995).
- Further evidence, albeit more tentative (because of the short time
periods involved), are the electorates of Grayndler and Lowe. In the
case of Grayndler, the new member who was elected at the March 1996
election, Anthony Albanese (NESBII) had an adjusted ethnic reference
ratio of 33 per cent in his first half year in Parliament. In the case
of Lowe, the new member elected in March 1996 was Paul Zammit (NESBI),
whose adjusted ethnic reference ratio for the first half of 1996 was
23.4 per cent. It is also interesting to note that the member for Moore
since 1990, Paul Filing (born in Germany of English speaking parents),
had one of the lowest ethnic distance ratios (at 1.45) even though he
represented a non-ethnic electorate.
- Another reason why homeland political issues may be underestimated
is that many MPs often pass on diasporic issues to other MPs to air
publicly, where they feel that their intervention on behalf of a particular
country is likely to be either interpreted as being influenced by the
presence of a particular ethnic community in their constituency or offend
other ethnic groups which also reside in the electorate ( Zappal 1997).
- Informal interviews conducted with several MPs, for instance, indicated
that some feel 'captured' or constrained to express certain views on
particular foreign policy issues because of the particular ethnic composition
of their electorates. For one politician's view see (Theophanous and
Stavrou Michael 1990).
(N = 48)
Electorate State % born in % using Party Member & 2PP Party/member
LOTE (<3/96)c (<3/96) d (>3/96) e
NESC a at home b
Fowler NSW 44.5 54.5 ALP T. Grace (72) ALP
Grayndler NSW 39.0 47.8 ALP J. McHugh (73) ALP, A. Albanese
Watson NSW 38.6 53.1 ALP L. McLeay (64) ALP
Prospect NSW 37.8 48.3 ALP J. Crosio (69) ALP
Maribyrnong Vic 35.9 48.8 ALP A. Griffiths (69) ALP, B. Sercombe
Blaxland NSW 34.6 47.2 ALP Paul Keating (72) ALP
Gellibrand Vic 34.4 43.5 ALP Ralph Willis (75) ALP
Reid NSW 34.2 44.6 ALP L. Ferguson (69) ALP
Hotham Vic 31.1 36.5 ALP S. Crean (63) ALP
Holt Vic 31.0 33.0 ALP M. Duffy (60) ALP, G. Evans
Lowe NSW 31.0 40.4 ALP M. Easson (55) LIB, P. Zammit
Kingsford-Smith NSW 30.6 36.0 ALP L. Brereton (65) ALP
Melbourne Vic 30.5 36.7 ALP L. Tanner (74) ALP
Scullin Vic 30.0 46.1 ALP H. Jenkins (69) ALP
Batman Vic 29.8 43.7 ALP B. Howe (73) ALP, M. Ferguson
Wills Vic 29.8 43.2 IND P. Cleary (52) ALP, K. Thomson
Calwell Vic 29.3 40.8 ALP A. Theophanous(68) ALP
Bruce (f) Vic 28.7 32.4 Liberal J. Beale ALP, A. Griffin
Barton NSW 27.5 36.7 ALP Gary Punch (59) ALP
Melb. Ports Vic 24.2 25.4 ALP C. Holding (56) ALP
Menzies Vic 23.0 30.6 Liberal K. Andrews (59) Lib
Wentworth NSW 22.8 21.9 Liberal A. Thomson (55) Lib
Chisholm Vic 22.2 25.8 Liberal M. Wooldridge (53) Lib
Bennelong NSW 22.1 24.6 Liberal J. Howard (53) Lib
Greenway NSW 21.3 24.4 ALP R. Gorman (63) ALP
Sydney NSW 19.9 20.8 ALP P. Baldwin (69) ALP
Chifley NSW 19.9 22.8 ALP R. Price (73) ALP
North Sydney NSW 19.8 19.4 IND T. Mack (52) Lib, J. Hockey
Perth WA 19.8 19.6 ALP S. Smith (56) ALP
Lalor Vic 19.7 26.0 ALP B. Jones (67) ALP
Parramatta NSW 19.0 21.1 ALP P. Elliot (53) Lib, R. Cameron
Port Adelaide SA 18.9 24.2 ALP R. Sawford (62) ALP
Tangney WA 18.5 15.7 Liberal D. Williams (62) Lib
Higgins Vic 18.4 20.1 Liberal P. Costello (60) Lib
Stirling WA 18.2 20.8 Liberal E. Cameron (51) Lib
Throsby NSW 17.4 21.8 ALP C. Hollis (74) ALP
Cowan WA 17.2 17.1 Liberal R. Evans (51) Lib
Sturt SA 17.1 21.2 Liberal C. Pyne (56) Lib
Adelaide SA 16.4 20.7 Liberal T. Worth (51) Lib
Kooyong Vic 16.3 18.0 Liberal P. Georgiou (64) Lib
Source: Australian Electoral Commission and Parliamentary Research Service.
1995, Electoral Atlas 1995, Rev. Ed. January 1996, Canberra: AGPS; A.
Kopras. 1995, Comparisons of 1991 Census Characteristics: Commonwealth
Electoral Divisions (1994 Boundaries), BP. No.34, Canberra: Parliamentary
Research Service, Department of the Parliamentary Library.
a Percentage of persons in electorate born in non-English speaking countries.
b Percentage of persons in electorate speaking a language other than
English at home.
c Political party which held the seat prior to the election on 2 March
1996.
d Name of MP who held the seat prior to the March 1996 election. The
number in brackets refers to the two-party preferred vote for that MP
(1993 election).
e Political party, name of MP (where different) after the March 1996
election..
f The post-1993 boundary changes turned Bruce into a notional Labor seat
which it in fact won in 1996.
Comments to: web.library@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed
19 May, 2005
by the Parliamentary Library Web Manager
© Commonwealth of Australia
|
 |
