Being a backbench government Member of Parliament is at best a mixed blessing.
On
the one hand, there is the excitement of being part of the government team,
able to interact with Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards about what the
government is doing and generally being “in the know”. Through Caucus
committees, government backbenchers can work alongside Ministers on the
development of policy ideas which may eventually come to fruition as government
policy.
Government
backbenchers can also lobby Ministers about issues of particular importance to
the electorates or districts they represent and can generally expect, for
obvious political reasons, any such representations to be treated more
favourably than if they were coming from an Opposition MP. Locally, they can
then claim the credit for moves beneficial to their electorates or regions.
But,
on the other hand, the ultimate decisions still rest with Ministers and the
Cabinet, meaning government backbenchers are often no more than influential
supplicants. And because of collective Cabinet responsibility – the doctrine
that binds all members of the Executive, including Ministers outside Cabinet
and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to support all Cabinet decisions – the Executive
virtually always has the numbers to prevail in any Caucus discussion.
The
formation of the Budget each year, and major policy decisions are almost
entirely the province of the Cabinet, with backbenchers usually informed of the
details after the event. In case of the Budget, government backbenchers are normally
briefed on its contents only about an hour before it is delivered in the House
– about the same time as senior Opposition MPs are given an embargoed copy in a
pre-Budget lock-up, and considerably later than the media whose lock-up begins
hours earlier – yet they are expected to support it enthusiastically when it is
debated in the House.
It
is often a similar process regarding controversial legislation pushed through
under Urgency. In what has become the classic but no means only example, in
late 1988 Labour MPs were informed at an early morning meeting of Cabinet’s
intention to introduce at 9:00 am that morning under Urgency a Bill to make
“some minor technical changes” to the way departmental chief executives were
appointed – that Bill was the infamous State Sector Act.
Almost
certainly, the same process would have been followed with this week’s dramatic
and controversial changes to the way pay equity issues are addressed. The fact
that this was an ACT-driven initiative adds a further complication to the
process. But the surprise that accompanied its announcement suggested as few
people as necessary were aware in advance of the plan for obvious security
reasons. Government backbenchers were unlikely to have been in this group.
The
upshot was that when Parliament resumed this week after a three week recess
this legislation was introduced under Urgency, to be passed through all stages
as soon as possible without any reference to a select committee or opportunity
for public submissions. The Cabinet simply wanted the legislation passed as
quickly as possible, to prevent the possibility of any legal or other
challenges before the law was changed.
To
do so, it relied on the support of the government backbench for the obligatory
occasional brief supportive speeches and the necessary votes in Parliament for
it to happen as quickly as possible. As they did so, the backbenchers would
have had to endure the usual standard cries of “shame” and outrage from the
other side of the House, notwithstanding that they too when in office – like
every government – used and will continue to use Urgency in this way to pass
controversial legislation.
Over
the next few weeks, it will be the government backbench “lobby fodder” that
will have to do the lion’s share of facing up and responding to the anger of
those adversely affected by this legislation. They will also be the ones
challenged to explain why they supported it. Ministers, meanwhile, will have
shifted their attention to the Budget due at the end of May. Between now and
then, as is customary, there will be an ever-increasing drip-feed of
announcements from Ministers about the good things they have secured in this
Budget.
But
for the government backbenchers, the same old grind will continue. Once they
have weathered the storm over the pay equity legislation, they will need to
gear up to support and explain the Budget in its entirety, despite having had a
similarly minimal input into its development. And all the while they will be
focused on convincing their constituents that they are personally having an
impact on what the government is doing and are therefore worth re-electing next
year.
For
some, the motivation will be a noble belief that their government is always
right. For others it will be a case of proving their loyalty to the team and
willingness to take the good with the bad, in the hope that one day they will
become Ministers. Then they really will be able to have a proactive and
meaningful impact on what the government is doing.