Abstract
This article aims to contribute to the growing literature on the substantive representation of women in conservative parties by evaluating MPs’ claims to ‘act for women’ during parliamentary debates on reproductive health and same-sex marriage in the UK and Australia. It argues that the actions of centre-right MPs who made claims about the situation of women in their speeches can be understood as the substantive representation of women, but the nature of this representation is problematised. While some legislators’ actions can be understood as a ‘feminist’ substantive representation of women, the action of MPs who supported liberalising reforms can be broadly understood as a different kind of ‘conservative’ substantive representation of women, which aims to address women’s status in a more traditional way. This can be differentiated from the actions of a group of conservative MPs who claimed to ‘act for women’ but did not seek to address women’s position (even in a traditional way), which is considered conversely as the representation of conservative interests. This article argues that to fully understand MPs’ legislative behaviour in Westminster democracies, consideration of an MP’s ideological view must be central to any explanation of the substantive representation of women on ‘morality politics’ issues.
Keywords
Introduction
The broad literature on the substantive representation of women underscores our knowledge of the multiple sites in which the substantive representation of women occurs and the multiple actors who may substantively represent women. Yet, scholars of gender and politics have raised concern that, until recently, there has been a disproportionate focus on representatives and parties on the left. As Celis and Childs argue, there has been ‘An unstated conflation between the substantive representation of women and the substantive representation of (leftist/liberal/progressive) feminist interests’. 1 Through analysis of the actions of non-leftist MPs during free votes and preceding debate, this article aims to contribute to the literature by evaluating conservative MPs’ claims to ‘act for women’ on two key ‘morality politics’ issues.
Analysis of MPs’ voting patterns on reproductive health and marriage equality in the British House of Commons and the Australian House of Representatives reveals division in conservative parties on the two issues, with a significant number of centre-right MPs taking a liberal position in favour of reform (alongside their colleagues in centre-left parties). In the preceding debate on each issue, MPs from parties across the political spectrum claimed to ‘act for women’; however, it is argued that these claims deserve further attention in relation to both the substantive representation of women, on the one hand, and the representation of certain ideological interests, on the other. By examining the claims of centre-right MPs who spoke about the situation of women in their speeches, the aim of this article is to examine whether centre-right MPs’ decisions can be understood as the substantive representation of women, and, if so, whether this is different to the substantive representation of women in leftist parties.
It is argued that the actions of centre-right MPs who took a liberal position (voting for reform on reproductive health and marriage equality) and made claims about the situation of women in their speeches can be broadly understood as the substantive representation of women as this group aimed to represent women’s interests (although not necessarily in a feminist way) and to improve women’s status through the passage of legislation. This is different to a feminist substantive representation of women because the actions of this group were mediated by conservative ideological values, which aimed to address women’s situation in a more traditional way. Furthermore, this can be viewed in contrast to the actions of some centre-right MPs who voted against liberalising reforms while claiming to ‘act for women’ but in ways that did not seek to improve their status either with a goal of fostering gender equality or in a more traditional way. It is argued that the actions of this group no longer constitute the substantive representation of women but rather the representation of conservative interests.
The article continues in five sections. The first section reviews the two strands of literature to which the article intends to make a contribution: free voting on ‘morality politics’ issues; and the substantive representation of women. The second section discusses methodological issues. The third section defines the conservative substantive representation of women and what it means to ‘act for women’ or to substantively represent women from a conservative position. Subsequently, the fourth section presents the analysis of voting patterns and parliamentary debates on the resolution of two ‘morality politics’ issues: the transfer of the administration of the drug RU486 in the Australian House of Representatives to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA); and the debate on marriage equality in the UK House of Commons. An analysis of the arguments made by conservative legislators who claimed to ‘act for women’ in the debates provides some insight into how women’s situation was addressed by different groups of legislators, and the question of the nature of the representation of women is explored further. The article concludes by reflecting on the comparative findings of this piece.
Free voting on ‘morality politics’ issues and the substantive representation of women in Parliament
The article aims to bridge two related sets of literature: free voting on morality politics issues; and the substantive representation of women. As such, the contribution that the article aims to make in relation to each of these strands of literature will now be discussed in turn.
Free voting on ‘morality politics’ issues
A broad literature has emerged concerning the politics of ‘morality issues’ in both Westminster democracies and beyond. 2 Within this literature, parliamentary free votes, or ‘conscience’ votes as they are more widely called in Australia, have attracted attention because they take place primarily, but not exclusively, on issues that can be broadly termed ‘morality politics’ issues, including abortion, assisted dying and the death penalty. Analyses of such votes offer some insight into the behaviour of legislators when they are not subject to party discipline. As Warhurst argues, a conscience vote ‘usually involves the most divisive issues of the day – and produces some of the most interesting parliamentary politics. Freed of party discipline, parliamentarians reveal so much more of their own personal values and thinking about contentious issues’. 3 Broadly speaking, studies of free vote patterns in the UK, New Zealand and Australia have found that, even when the whips are off and MPs are not subject to formal party discipline, political party membership remains a key predictor of their voting patterns. 4
Others highlight that party is not a perfect predictor of voting patterns and seek to explain splits that occur. 5 These studies demonstrate that MPs’ ideological and religious beliefs are important factors and must be taken into account to fully explain voting patterns. Taking this one step further, it is argued here that the relationship between MPs’ free vote patterns (and, importantly, their speeches in the preceding debate on a given ‘morality politics’ issue) and the substantive representation of women in Parliament under such circumstances deserves further attention. By applying a gender lens to better understand the actions of conservative MPs in particular, this study aims to contribute to the literature on free vote patterns by further investigating the divisions that occur within and between political parties. This is important because in the absence of party discipline, free vote circumstances could create the conditions for the emergence of ‘critical actors’ who claim to ‘act for women’, and this brings questions about the nature of these claims to the fore.
Although studies of the substantive representation of women have focused on ‘morality politics’ issues, and abortion in particular, until recently, relatively few studies of the substantive representation of women have focused on the parliamentary free vote as a site of substantive representation. 6 Childs et al. provide a rich analysis of the parliamentary debate and free vote on amendments concerning abortion to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 in the House of Commons. 7 However, in this case, insight into the attitudes and actions of a significant group (conservative women MPs) was limited due to their lack of participation in the debate, which made it difficult to identify the factors that influenced their decision during the subsequent free vote. 8 The present study aims to complement earlier research and overcome such difficulties by focusing on the recent Marriage Equality Bill in the UK House of Commons, in which MPs from all genders and all sides of the House participated in the debate on the issue.
The substantive representation of women in conservative parties
A large body of literature deals with the substantive representation of women and highlights multiple sites where the substantive representation of women can occur and the multiple actors involved. 9 Following several important developments in the theoretical literature on substantive representation, and in response to a historical emphasis on women on the left of the political spectrum, there has recently been a shift in focus to the substantive representation of women in conservative parties. 10 The present study is informed by the propositions of Celis and Childs, who urge researchers to take women’s diversity into account when undertaking political analysis. 11 They argue that, until recently, the overemphasis in the substantive representation literature on the actions of representatives and parties on the left has created a ‘blind spot’ in theoretical and empirical research on the substantive representation of women.
As a result, a growing body of work has emerged on this topic, including several important studies of the substantive representation of women in the UK Conservative Party; however, this article aims to further contribute to the literature on the substantive representation of women in centre-right parties outside the UK and US (which have received a large amount of attention in comparison) by utilising a case from the Australian Parliament. 12 By comparing the substantive representation of women in parties on the right of the political spectrum in Australia and the UK, it is intended that the comparative approach utilised will provide insight into how the substantive representation of women is expressed in different contexts, which will allow further understanding of the actions of groups of MPs who claim to ‘act for women’ but do so in contrasting ways. This approach might also allow further consideration of how the substantive representation of women is often interwoven with other identities, such as party membership and religious and ideological beliefs.
Investigating the substantive representation of women on ‘morality politics’ issues
The Australian House of Representatives and UK House of Commons were chosen on the basis that they operate within a ‘Westminster’ parliamentary system, thus sharing the procedures that originated with the conventions, practices and precedents of the UK Westminster Parliament. Both parliaments utilise free votes as a method of resolving ‘morality politics’ issues, which offer potential insights into MPs’ actions and beliefs when they are not subject to party discipline. MPs face strict party discipline in both parliaments and while acts of rebellion in the UK House of Commons have become more frequent in recent years, they remain rare in the Australian House of Representatives. 13 A ‘most similar’ comparative approach will allow an analysis of the different ways in which women were represented across this type of parliamentary system. The article focuses on the main political parties from each side of the political spectrum, while not discounting their differences. To facilitate comparison in the analysis of voting patterns, the political parties have been grouped on the basis of their broadly similar ideological foundations and commitments. In this study, parties referred to as on ‘the left’ of the political spectrum are the UK Labour Party and the Australian Labor Party (ALP), and those on ‘the right’ are the UK Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in Australia. In the analysis of the voting patterns, minor political parties such as the Australian Greens and those that have received more prominence in recent years, such as the UK Liberal Democrats, are omitted to facilitate comparison.
The article presents two case studies focusing on one key ‘morality politics’ issue in each Parliament: the transfer of responsibility of the administration of the medical abortion drug RU486 to the TGA in the Australian House of Representatives; and the debate on same-sex marriage in the UK House of Commons. Each of the case studies involves empirical analysis of the vote and debate on each issue. A gender-based analysis of the ‘conscience’ or ‘free’ votes on each issue reveals the patterns of MPs’ voting on the issue at the party level. Subsequently, the analysis of MPs’ speeches during debate on each issue allows consideration of their claims to ‘act for women’. The issues were selected as they attracted significant media attention at the time of their resolution, but also because at least two different sets of issues were at stake in relation to the status of women: first, reproductive health, including, but not directly related to, the right to safe and legal abortion; and, second, women’s right to marry a partner of any gender. Thus, there might be an explicit link between an MP’s vote and a particular gendered perspective on the given issue.
Given the complexities of the issues at hand, qualitative analysis of the parliamentary debates on the issues is important not only to better understand the ‘outcome’ of the free vote, but also to understand the actions of legislators during the legislative process. 14 The issues were chosen to challenge existing notions of the substantive representation of women and to further evaluate claims of ‘acting for women’ as a proxy for feminist representation, thus opening up discussion as to whether their ‘acts’ (voting on Bills and speaking in debates) can be considered to be a ‘conservative’ or ‘feminist’ substantive representation of women. The debates were analysed using a deep-reading approach and themes were drawn out to allow an understanding of how the substantive representation of women was expressed, as well as to reveal how notions of gender were constituted as part of the process of representation.
Defining a ‘conservative’ and ‘feminist’ substantive representation of women
Gender and politics scholars have observed that legislators across the political spectrum make claims to ‘act for women’; yet, whether these actions constitute the substantive representation of women is contested. It is argued here that the actions of centre-right MPs can be understood to constitute the substantive representation of women, but there remains a key difference to a feminist substantive representation of women. Although the definition of a feminist substantive representation of women is widely contested in the literature, it is defined here as an act that claims to represent the interests of women, resulting in the passage of legislation that aims to improve their status, and as being underpinned by the strategic goal of fostering gender equality. In contrast, a conservative substantive representation of women is defined as an act that is claimed to be in the interests of women, but as this action is mediated by conservative ideological values, it may result in the passage of legislation that addresses women’s situation in a more traditional way.
Furthermore, an important distinction must be made between types of claims from legislators that can be considered a conservative substantive representation of women, on the one hand, and the representation of conservative interests, on the other. While a conservative substantive representation of women aims to represent women’s interests (albeit not in a feminist way) and improve women’s status (otherwise, it would not be ‘in the interests of women’), if claims made do not aim to address women’s situation in terms of improving their status, even in a traditional way, this no longer constitutes the substantive representation of women but rather the representation of conservative interests.
Following from these definitions, this article is concerned with two ways in which MPs can ‘act for women’ on ‘morality politics’ issues. First, an MP may ‘act for women’ by casting a ballot during a free vote on a Bill. However, it is important here not to conflate ‘liberal’ voting patterns with the support of feminist strategic goals, and, as a result, the article is concerned with a second way in which an MP can act for women: by speaking in the debate preceding the free vote on a given issue. As the free vote and debates analysed here where ‘unwhipped’, an analysis of the arguments made by legislators who claimed to act for women on these occasions offers potential for insights into their actions (in relation to the substantive representation of women) without some of the usual constraints of party discipline that characterise Westminster democracies.
How do centre-right MPs ‘act for women’ during the resolution of ‘morality politics’ issues?
The article will now evaluate British and Australian legislators’ claims to represent women on two key ‘morality politics’ issues. As mentioned earlier, two case studies are presented, with a particular focus on the claims made by MPs from conservative parties: first, legislation introduced into the Australian House of Representatives that sought to transfer the responsibility for the administration of the drug RU486 from the Minister of Health and Ageing to the TGA; and, second, the debate in the UK House of Commons on the Bill to legalise same-sex marriage. 15
‘Centring’ women? The debate on RU486 in the Australian House of Representatives
The Second Reading debate and vote on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill, which sought to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of RU486 (or mifepristone), took place in the Australian House of Representatives over three days during February 2006. Due to the potential use of mifepristone as an emergency contraceptive, issues relating to reproductive health entered into the debate and several speakers referred to abortion and women’s health. However, broadly speaking, the key issue at stake was that the transfer of the administration of RU486 would bring the procedure for administering the drug in line with other pharmaceuticals in Australia.
Table 1 shows divisions in the two main political parties during the Second Reading vote on the Bill. Women MPs from the Liberal Party were more likely to take the liberal position (defined here as a vote in favour of the transfer of responsibility of the drug) than their male party colleagues, but less likely to take this position than legislators from the ALP. Here, 62% of Liberal women MPs, compared to 49% of Liberal men, supported the Bill, while male Liberal Party MPs were almost as likely to support the Bill as to oppose it.
Voting on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill in the Australian House of Representatives.
Source: Hansard Parliamentary Debates Reports.
The Bill’s supporters included men and women MPs from both the centre-left ALP and the centre-right Liberal Party. During the preceding debate, male representatives from both main parties who supported the Bill were least likely to make claims relating to women. This group of MPs stated that they supported the transfer of RU486 as it would be correct (in procedural terms) to bring the administration of the drug in line with other pharmaceuticals in Australia. For this group of legislators, the key issue at stake was that the TGA was the most appropriate body to administer and determine the safety of RU486, as is the case with other medications in Australia.
In contrast, women MPs from the ALP were more likely to refer to the situation of women in their speeches by framing the issue in terms of women’s interests, and frequently took the opportunity to speak about ‘women’s choice’ in relation to their reproductive health and the potential benefits of the drug to their situation. This group of MPs were also most likely to speak of abortion in terms of differentiating it from the issue at hand, but several representatives took the opportunity to defend the legality of the practice. So, in this way, it is possible to understand the actions of ALP women MPs as a feminist substantive representation of women as their aim was to improve the situation of women by fostering progressive notions in relation to women’s rights.
A number of women representatives from the Liberal Party empathised with women during the debate, as illustrated by the following contribution: A woman who makes a decision to proceed with a pregnancy is not a better person because of her decision than one who seeks a termination. I urge those from both sides of this debate who would criticise and condemn to walk a mile in the shoes of the people whose views offend you. (Sussan Ley, Liberal) Having access to RU486 also provides for a termination at an earlier stage of pregnancy – surely a better outcome than a surgical procedure. Women living in rural communities – and I speak to this because I have many women living in rural areas in my election of Pearce in Western Australia – are disproportionately disadvantaged under the current arrangements. (Judi Moylan, Liberal)
Not all Liberal women shared a positive view of the Bill put forward by the cross-party group of women senators. The following contribution illustrates the critical attitude held by some Party members: ‘This is a debate on a clumsy Bill, foisted on the Parliament by four women with well-meaning but essentially misguided motives’ (Sophie Panopoulos, Liberal). Arguably, however, the strongest group of opponents to the Bill were Liberal men MPs, including Tony Abbott (who some argue was the target of the Bill as Minister for Health and Ageing at the time) and other members of the conservative Lyons Forum, who made claims about women in their speeches. 16 Here, an understanding of the context of the Bill is important once again to understand how notions of gender were utilised by this group of representatives. It is possible to view the actions of this group as part of a broader anti-choice ‘women-centred’ strategy utilised by campaigners in opposition to abortion in Australia, as observed by some commentators who argue that those who oppose abortion have exploited aspects of the ‘women-centred’ pro-choice position by placing women (rather than the foetus) at the centre of arguments. 17 These developments bring significant questions about the nature of women’s representation to the fore.
So, to better understand the actions of this group of legislators in relation to the representation of women, it is important to distinguish between the claims of Liberal women legislators that can be considered a ‘conservative’ substantive representation of women (who supported the Bill and sought to create the conditions for women to access the drug) discussed earlier, and the representation of conservative interests (by Liberal opponents of the Bill). By highlighting the potential ‘risks of RU486 to women’ alongside their opposition to the widespread availability of abortion, a key concern for Liberal opponents was that the transfer of administration of the drug would lead to an increase in the number of abortions. So, while this group of MPs placed women at the centre of their speeches, it is difficult to view this as the substantive representation of women as there is little evidence that this group’s aim was to improve women’s status, even in a more traditional way; rather, it was an attempt to advance conservative interests related to their ideological and religious beliefs about abortion.
‘Equality’ or ‘fairness’? Debating marriage equality in the UK House of Commons
The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill was a government bill introduced in the House of Commons by Conservative MP and Minister for Equalities Maria Miller on 24 January 2013. The Bill received Royal Assent in July 2013 and legalised same-sex marriage in England and Wales; however, prior to this, the Bill was debated and passed its Second Reading vote on the evening of 5 February 2013. Table 2 shows the voting patterns in each of the main political parties during the Second Reading vote on the Bill. Conservative and Labour women MPs were most likely to take a liberal position (defined here as voting in favour of the Bill), while Conservative men were most likely to oppose it, although the party was highly split on the issue.
Free voting on the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Commons.
Source: Hansard Parliamentary Debates Report.
Speeches in the debate originated from all sides. The Minister for Equalities opened the debate and as speeches progressed, ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ were two key themes to emerge. Consideration of the minister’s opening speech, which outlined the provisions of the Bill, helps understand the position of the Conservative government on the issue, and consideration of the speeches of Conservative MPs who supported the bill demonstrates how their notions of representation were overlaid with differing concerns than a large number of Labour MPs who strongly supported the Bill.
Extracts from Miller’s speech indicate that the government took action on the issue to ‘strengthen the moral fabric of society’ and out of a reverence for tradition, in contrast to concerns about equality and freedom of sexual expression (the predominant view expressed in the Labour Party). The following excerpt sums up the view held by many Conservative supporters of the Bill: ‘Marriage is one of the most important institutions we have; it binds families and society together, and it is a building block that promotes stability. This Bill supports and cultivates marriage, and I commend it to the House’ (Maria Miller, Conservative).
As mentioned earlier, Labour MPs were more likely to frame the issue in terms of notions of equality and freedom of sexual expression, and several MPs held the conviction that the Bill was essential to fully celebrate human achievement: this Parliament should have pride in giving people equal rights to be respected and to have their relationships celebrated in the same way. (Yvette Cooper, Labour) We love the idea of a golden or diamond wedding anniversary, where the couple are still caring for each other, even though they are bickering over the biscuits. We also all clearly like a good party, too. (Yvette Cooper, Labour) As someone who believes firmly in equality and human rights, I strongly defend people’s rights to express their views freely within the law, regardless of how repugnant I might find them or how strongly I might disagree with them. (Sandra Osborne, Labour) Despite all the discussion and debate, this Bill is about one thing – fairness. It is about giving those who want to get married the opportunity to do so, while protecting the rights of those who do not agree with same-sex marriage. (Maria Miller, Conservative) Our sexuality is fundamental to who we are. Surely the crux of the debate is the question of whether we accord equal rights, respect and esteem to people regardless of their sexuality. (Sarah Wollaston, Conservative) It has been argued that equality is not all that matters – that we are different and we should celebrate differences. I agree: we should celebrate cultural and other differences. However, having been different for most of my life, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that being treated equally is very welcome indeed. (Margot James, Conservative)
Conclusion
This article has evaluated legislators’ claims to represent women on two key ‘morality politics’ issues in the British and Australian Parliaments. With the increased descriptive representation of women in Parliament, the findings of these case studies have important implications for the changing nature of representation in the both the UK and Australia. There are two main implications for the substantive representation of women literature that can be drawn from this analysis. First, the analysis of voting patterns on three issues through a comparative gender lens provides evidence to demonstrate that, in the UK and Australia, conservative women legislators are more likely than their male colleagues to take a liberal position on ‘morality politics’ issues and, thus, it could be argued, provide support for liberalising reform on ‘morality politics’ issues, albeit most often in a more traditional way. Moreover, it could be argued that reform was achieved sooner and conservative restrictions were opposed more effectively than would have otherwise been the case if there had been less women present in Parliament. This was possible because, taking the liberal position during conscience votes, women legislators supported the work of critical actors in reforming the law. This finding has particular relevance for the study of gender as it supports the findings of other studies that signal a shift in the nature of representation and illuminates the difference that women make in parliaments and the kind of interests they promote.
Second, both case studies demonstrate that conservative MPs may substantively represent women in both a ‘feminist’ and, more frequently, a traditional ‘conservative’ way, but claims must be distinguished from the representation of conservative interests. In the UK, a group of newly elected women Conservative MPs held views that could be considered closer to their counterparts in the Labour Party and, thus, represented women in a more progressive way by seeking to foster the goal of gender equality. Similarly, in Australia, Liberal MPs represented women in different ways; however, while a group of MPs on the far-right wing of the party claimed to ‘act for women’, it was unclear how the actions of this group sought to advance women’s status, even in a traditional way. This highlights the complexities involved in women’s representation, the ideological concerns involved and the importance of distinguishing between a conservative substantive representation of women and the representation of conservative interests.
Third, the article sought to address the problem of how the substantive representation of women occurs in conservative parties in the UK and Australia, and by identifying competing claims in conservative parties, it is argued that conservative MPs’ substantive representation of women is highly interwoven with their ideological view. In Westminster democracies, consideration of an MP’s ideological view must be central to any explanation of the substantive representation of women on ‘morality politics’ issues in order to fully understand MPs’ legislative behaviour. Yet, further research is required to better understand the legislative behaviour of women MPs in conservative parties, for example, in other parliaments and on other ‘morality politics’ issues, in order to identify how ‘women-centred’ and ‘choice-centred’ discourses play out in conservative parties elsewhere and to further identify the impact of other factors, such as an MP’s length in office, their age or their religious beliefs. This is particularly important in the UK, with the influx of new Conservative women MPs following the 2010 and 2015 general elections.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Marian Sawer and three anonymous referees for comments on earlier drafts of this article. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibility of the author.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.