Politics as a transitory vocation: a case study of the post-parliamentary challenges experienced by former Victorian MPs

ABSTRACT

A career in parliament is inherently a transitory vocation, and parliamentary turnover is critical for a healthy democracy. Yet many MPs fail to prepare for the time when they must leave parliament. This lack of preparedness exacerbates the challenges of post-parliamentary life. Drawing on research conducted with former members of the Parliament of Victoria, Australia, this article reports on the experiences of MPs leaving parliament. Former MPs, particularly those who leave the parliament involuntarily, experience serious challenges including a loss of identity, a fracturing of social relationships, and employment and financial stress. These outcomes may have democratic implications by discouraging highly capable candidates from diverse backgrounds from pursuing a career in parliament. Acknowledging that the role of modern parliaments is expanding well beyond their traditional purview, we offer practical recommendations to mitigate these issues.

KEYWORDS:

• Political careers
• transitioning from parliament
• former MPs wellbeing
• MP training and professional development

Introduction

After the exhilaration of election victory, the all-consuming nature of a parliamentary career demands significant commitment and personal sacrifice (Flinders et al. 2020; Weinberg 2012). Members of Parliament (MPs) are often so focused on the pressures of their daily schedule, and on winning the next election, that very little thought is given to planning for life after parliament (Roberts 2017, 2019a, 2019b). Indeed, for most members of professional legislatures (Squire 2007), politics is an all-consuming vocation, which following Weber ([1919] 1958) both gives ‘life … meaning in the service of a cause’ and provides ‘a permanent source of income’ (Weber [1919] 1958, 84). Yet a career in parliament is, by its very nature, transient. Most parliamentary careers are short (e.g. eight years in the Australian House of Representatives, the UK House of Commons and the Parliament of Victoria) for reasons outside MPs’ control and, despite their initially high ambitions, most MPs will never rise to hold a ministerial portfolio or similar position of leadership (Lewis and Coghill 2005; Weinberg 2002; Victorian Parliamentary Library & Information Service 2021). Thus, for many MPs, politics should be understood as a transitory vocation. Given the inherently transitory nature of parliamentary careers, it is surprising that so many MPs appear to be shocked when they must leave parliament and typically do so without a plan for the future. As a result of this lack of preparedness, many former MPs (FMPs) face serious psychological, professional and financial challenges in their life after parliament (Brideson 2006; Byrne and Theakston 2016; Docherty 2001; Roberts 2017, 2019a, 2019b; Shaffir and Kleinknecht 2005; Theakston, Gouge, and Honeyman 2007).

From a democratic standpoint, parliamentary turnover is both expected and healthy: it demonstrates electoral competitiveness and works as a mechanism for renewal of the legislature (Keane 2009; Roberts 2019a). Yet there are real human costs associated with legislative turnover. While elected MPs are lauded and take up their rightful place at the heart of the governmental system, the unsuccessful are quickly forgotten (Byrne and Theakston 2016; Roberts 2017, 2019b; Shaffir and Kleinknecht 2005; Theakston, Gouge, and Honeyman 2007). Their loss of status is significant and rapid. As Ignatieff (2013, 166–167) puts it, ‘there is nothing so ex as an ex-politician, especially a defeated one’. The challenges that follow may last for years. Parliamentary experience may be difficult to convert into viable employment in other sectors, resulting in financial hardship. Following the strains of a parliamentary career (Flinders et al. 2020; Weinberg 2012), FMPs are often subjected to the pain of public rejection, psychological distress and acute social and familial pressures. Indeed, while in some instances, leaving parliament results in the improvement of family relationships, in others it can be the catalyst for serious relationship breakdowns (Roberts 2017, 2019b). In many cases, the challenges of transitioning from parliament, especially when this is involuntary, are experienced acutely by the spouse, children and other close family of the FMP, at a time when it is these people whom departing members rely on most for support (Kwiatkowski 1513; Roberts 2017, 2019b; Shaffir and Kleinknecht 2005).

These problems for individual FMPs and their families should also be concerns for a liberal democracy. As Flinders et al. (2020, 256; see also Weinberg 2012) explain, ‘the health of democracy may, to an extent, depend on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of those we elect to represent and take decisions on our behalf’. By extension, the wellbeing of FMPs might be just as critical to the health of democracy. This is because, along with the demanding working hours, increased media scrutiny, online abuse and threats to personal safety endured by many serving MPs (James et al. 2016; Pathé et al. 2014; Roberts 2019b; Weinberg 2012, 2015), the poor outcomes for FMPs may discourage highly capable candidates from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds from running for office (Baturo 2017; Hjelmar, Pedersen, and Pedersen 2022; Keane 2009; Roberts 2017, 2019a; Theakston 2012).

This article investigates the challenges that MPs experience as they transition to life after parliament. We report on research conducted in 2020 and 2021 with former members of the Parliament of Victoria, Australia (PoV). This comprised a survey of 93 FMPs, followed by in-depth interviews with 39 of these respondents, making it the largest study of its kind undertaken anywhere in the world to date. We also interviewed seven executive recruitment consultants to understand how FMPs are perceived by potential employers, and conducted a comparative survey of the rules and resources that structure the transition experience in 33 other Commonwealth parliaments. This multifaceted analysis enables a more holistic appreciation of the challenges that FMPs face, and a comparative understanding of how parliaments can act to mitigate some of these problems.

The article begins with an overview of Australian and international research on life after parliament and the transitory nature of political careers. In the second section, we present our main research findings concerning the challenges of leaving parliament as relayed to us by former Victorian MPs through interviews and our survey. Overall, we found that FMPs who left parliament voluntarily generally experience the smoothest transition, whereas FMPs whose departure is involuntary typically experience a more challenging transition. The third section draws on our examination of the transition processes across Commonwealth parliaments to offer five practical recommendations for what parliaments can do to mitigate these issues. These encompass providing training and support programmes to prepare sitting MPs for their inevitable departure; offering defeated MPs the opportunity to deliver a valedictory speech, publishing an official testimony of FMPs’ parliamentary service and providing sensitive practical assistance to vacate electoral offices and return parliamentary property; affording former MPs greater transitional financial and psychological support; and enhancing the capacity of former members’ associations to support FMPs.

Politics as a transitory vocation

Studying legislative careers can provide insights into legislators, legislative bodies, the larger socio-political system of which a legislature is part, and generalisable patterns across socio-political systems (Hibbing 1999). Yet there remain important gaps in our understanding of legislative careers. Among these is the fact that, as Theakston (2012, 139; see also Roberts 2017) observes, ‘[e]mpirically, much more is known about the backgrounds, recruitment patterns and routes into high office of political and governmental leaders than about their “exits” and what they do after leaving office’. This is especially the case for the majority of former legislators who never attain a ministerial or leadership position. As Keane (2009, 279, 282–283) has explained, although ‘[d]emocracies specialise in bringing leaders down to earth … [t]he subject of ex-office holders is under-theorised, under-researched and under-appreciated – and in many cases under-regulated’. The reason for this lack of interest in post-legislative life may be, as Roberts (2017, 255) suggests, that

[p]olitical mortality is not a comfortable subject to discuss. We shy away from lingering long over exits of any kind. The nature of political office and its intoxicating allure for many makes contemplating its end deeply painful. That politics is all about the promise of the future; that political parties exist to fight elections, to win and to stay in power make it all the more difficult for any space to be made for thinking about politicians going in the other direction.

We would benefit from knowing more about life after parliament, for at least three reasons. First, as the small number of existing studies on the transition from legislative life reviewed below demonstrate, for many former legislators this can be a psychologically, socially, professionally and financially very difficult process. Although some former members of parliament go on to enjoy well-paid roles and privileged entitlements once they have left office, many do not. Thus, FMPs’ experience of life after parliament should be counted among the many universal and unique stressors of holding public office (Flinders et al. 2020; Roberts 2017). At the very least, society owes these individuals a duty of care at what is often a particularly vulnerable time in their personal and professional lives (Roberts 2017). Second, ‘[t]he analysis of post-parliamentary careers has an important societal value’, as it can shed light on ‘[q]uestions … about the quality of the legislature, the moral character of the legislators and the way the legislative body is anchored in the broader society’ (Würfel 2018, 296; see also Hibbing 1999). Exploring these questions is not only of sociological interest, but of crucial importance to the smooth functioning of liberal democratic systems (Roberts 2019a). Third, the manner by which legislators leave office and their post-parliamentary personal and professional lives can create disincentives for highly capable people, especially those from diverse backgrounds, to consider a career in parliament (Baturo 2017; Hjelmar, Pedersen, and Pedersen 2022; Keane 2009; Roberts 2017, 2019a; Theakston 2012).

Despite the transitory nature of a career in parliament, there is substantial evidence that MPs fail to plan for the transition to life after parliament. A primary reason for this is perhaps, as one of our interviewees stated, because ‘no MP thinks of themselves as a former MP’ (see also Roberts 2017). The failure to plan for – or even imagine – life after parliament can exacerbate the negative psychological, financial and professional impacts of this process. Indeed, some FMPs experience the transition from parliament as a form of grief, loss (Roberts 2017, 2019a, 2019b) or ‘social death’ (Shaffir and Kleinknecht 2005). This is confirmed by a small number of in-depth analyses of post-legislative life, which have found, across a number of jurisdictions, that the overwhelmingly majority of sitting MPs do not prepare for the end of their career; and that this lack of preparation causes problems when their parliamentary career inevitably ends. These include three substantive studies of the emotional, psychological and professional effects of leaving the UK House of Commons using survey and interview data, conducted by Roberts (2017, 2019a, 2019b), Theakston, Gouge, and Honeyman (2007) and Byrne and Theakston (2016). In Canada, Docherty (2001) reported on a survey of 200 FMPs, while Shaffir and Kleinknecht (2005) interviewed former Canadian legislators at both the federal and provincial levels to determine how they came to terms with electoral defeat. The only multi-nation study of the transition from parliament, and the only one to include data from Australia, was conducted by Brideson (2006) whilst he was a member of the Victorian Legislative Council. This project, involving a survey completed by 235 FMPs and a number of interviews, examined the experience of former MPs across a number of Commonwealth jurisdictions.

Leaving parliament: the Victorian experience

We turn now to our findings on the emotional, psychological, financial, and employment challenges Victorian MPs have experienced in their transition from parliament. Our survey was sent to 217 former Victorian MPs.¹ Ninety-three responses were received, equating to a response rate of 43%. Although this is a small sample for statistical analysis, it is well above the accepted benchmark for surveying parliamentarians (Fisher and Herrick 2013; Maestas, Neeley, and Richardson 2003). We followed up the survey with 39 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with respondents who had indicated a willingness to do so. These 90-minute interviews were conducted on Zoom. Our interviewees had left parliament between two and 30 years prior to the interview. Approximately half of the survey and interview respondents left parliament voluntarily (resigned/retired/did not seek re-election) and half left involuntarily (defeated at election/lost preselection/seat abolished). This is representative of the broader population of Victorian FMPs, of whom 55% left parliament voluntarily and 45% involuntarily since 1999 (Victorian Parliamentary Library & Information Service 2021). The gender composition of the survey sample was also representative, with women accounting for 31% of respondents and 32% of departing MPs since 1999. However, the interview sample was less representative, with women constituting 51% of interviewees. The research was commissioned by the PoV in conjunction with the Victorian Parliamentary Former Members Association (VPFMA).

Leaving parliament: the immediate shock

Unsurprisingly, and consistent with previous studies (Roberts 2017, 2019b), FMPs who have planned their exit from parliament generally experience the smoothest transition. They have imagined their post-parliamentary life, made plans, built connections with potential employers, and/or identified new roles that they could take up within the community. By contrast, many FMPs whose departure was unplanned or unexpected typically experienced a more challenging transition. These individuals often felt that their exit was sudden, abrupt and traumatic. As one FMP said of losing their seat, it was

one of the most confronting things in my professional life, really, my adult life – apart from family members dying … it was incredibly confronting. It took me a very long time to get over it … probably a couple of years.

Our survey measured six kinds of transition challenge: financial, employment, practical (e.g. housing and transport), mental and emotional, physical and family/relationships. As Table 1 shows, with the exception of physical challenges, the group of parliamentarians who departed via retirement fared better than those who left involuntarily via electoral defeat. For instance, while 19% of those who left through retirement reported employment challenges, 71% of those who departed through electoral defeat experienced the same. The numbers in the other categories of departure (electoral redistribution and loss of party pre-selection) are very small, but the patchy evidence here also suggests these pathways are no less challenging than other involuntary departures. Our results also show that female FMPs reported serious transition challenges more often than male FMPs across all six categories.

Table 1. Frequency of transition challenges compared by gender and mode of departure from parliament.

	Financial	Employment	Practical	Mental/Emotional	Physical	Family/Relationships
Gender
Male	16 (25%)	27 (42%)	7 (11%)	18 (28%)	4 (6%)	19 (30%)
Female	10 (36%)	14 (50%)	7 (25%)	11 (39%)	5 (18%)	9 (32%)
Mode of departure
Electoral defeat	15 (39%)	27 (71%)	8 (21%)	18 (47%)	4 (11%)	16 (42%)
Retirement	9 (19%)	9 (19%)	5 (11%)	9 (19%)	4 (9%)	10 (21%)
Electoral Redistribution	1 (50%)	2 (100%)	–	–	–	–
Loss of party pre-selection	2 (40%)	3 (60%)	–	1 (20%)	–	1 (20%)

Across the board, leaving parliament is clearly a very difficult, even distressing, experience for many FMPs. One FMP described their electoral loss as ‘a shock rather than a surprise’, and ‘death by a thousand cuts’. Another FMP described losing their seat in terms of a physical amputation, as though their ‘arms had been chopped off’. Although they knew they shouldn’t take electoral loss personally, several reported feeling ‘hated and despised’, and ‘worthless’. For many FMPs, electoral defeat resulted in a profound shift in their sense of their place and belonging within their community. As one put it, ‘you feel rejected by your entire community’. This respondent stated that politics

is not a personal game, but God, do you take it personally. I'm sure it’s the same for everybody, but for me, to lose was just shattering … It’s just the shock and the horror of … all of a sudden, everything has gone … your reason to get up in the morning.

Some FMPs described the physical exhaustion they experienced at the end of an election campaign lasting weeks or months, adding that the distress at losing an election meant they were unable to ‘bounce back’ as they would have if they had won. Others conveyed the guilt and ‘pain’ they felt on account of failing to fulfil their obligations to their party, despite knowing that they had done all they could to hold their seat. Several spoke about their concern for their electoral office staff who were now out of work and would have to secure new positions with other MPs, or in a new sector altogether.

Electoral office audits

In the days immediately following an MP’s departure from parliament, a PoV team attend the MP’s electorate office to account for, and retrieve, furniture and office equipment. The FMP also must return their PoV car, laptop and mobile phone. Most respondents, including people who planned their departure, reported finding this process extremely challenging. Twenty-eight percent of our survey respondents reported that they were ‘unprepared’ for the suddenness of the process of retrieving parliamentary property. The process was also described as ‘highly traumatic’; lacking ‘emotion, compassion or empathy for the member and their staff’; ‘harsh, fast [with] little attention … given to the mental health of MPs and their staff’. As one FMP explained:

I had seven years of papers, things to pack up … I might have only had four days and they were going to come … Then this young woman came in, she treated me like a criminal. I mean, I thought I had every bit of equipment … But it was the way she treated me, it was just awful … That was the worst experience of the whole time. It was so insensitive … That's a long time ago and it still – I think about it very often.

Several respondents used the word ‘brutal’ to describe the process, while some reported feeling as though they were being accused of ‘wanting to steal Parliamentary Services equipment’.

Lack of opportunity for a valedictory speech

There are several rituals and rites of passage for MPs entering parliament for the first time, but fewer rituals for when they leave. For example, new members of the Victorian parliament deliver a first or maiden speech in which they introduce themselves and speak about their family background, their communities, their values and visions for their time in Parliament. MPs whose departure is planned are also given the opportunity to deliver a valedictory speech, and those who do so recall it as a deeply meaningful occasion. By convention, all members are present in the chamber and family, friends and staff can attend. One FMP who planned their retirement explained the sense of ‘closure’ that their valedictory speech engendered:

[It] was probably one of the best speeches I’ve ever made, and I still go back and watch it occasionally … Everybody was in there from both sides, which … I was chuffed about … Then everyone lines up on both sides to shake your hand … It was just great. My kids were there, and family were there. It was just a really nice way to finish up … and I felt so sorry for people who didn’t get the opportunity to do that … I just think that would be devastating.

This FMP who lost their seat concurred:

I didn’t get to do a last speech … There were a lot of people I wanted to thank and a lot of things I wanted to say that I would have said in the last speech that I couldn’t … I really found that difficult … Very sad … There’s no closure and … it’s almost like you’re just kicked out, here’s your basket of things from your desk and off you go.

The absence of an opportunity for departing MPs to formally mark the end of their parliamentary career can contribute to ongoing negative feelings about Parliament and their political career generally. This underlines the importance of a ‘rite of passage’ or ‘transition bridge’ in smoothing the emotional transition from one role to the next (Ashforth 2012; Roberts 2017). A valedictory speech would also give defeated FMPs the opportunity to reclaim the narrative of their career from the often-harsh media depictions of their departure, and an opportunity for the parliament and wider community to acknowledge their parliamentary service.

Post-parliamentary emotional and psychological experiences

The immediate experience of electoral loss and the longer-term emotional and psychological ramifications of leaving parliament reported by our respondents are similar to those observed in other studies (Brideson 2006; Roberts 2017, 2019a, 2019b; Shaffir and Kleinknecht 2005). Thirty-one percent experienced very high levels of emotional and psychological distress following their departure – a figure that was higher for those who departed involuntarily and for women FMPs in general (see Table 1). This reaction can be characterised as one of profound loss, ‘not just of the work itself but of daily structure, status, social engagement, and identity’ (Roberts 2019b, 707). Sometimes, this manifests as a form of grief (Brideson 2006; Roberts 2017, 2019b; personal communication with a psychologist who has worked with former Victorian MPs). General studies of retirement and redundancy demonstrate that the intensity of this grief response is often related to the degree of attachment felt to the position that has been relinquished, and is best understood as a loss of not only ‘the other’, but as a part of ‘the self’ (Marris 1993; Parkes 1971). Moreover, failing to appropriately acknowledge the intensity of this grief can lead to its exacerbation (Ashforth 2012; Gabriel, Gray, and Goregaokar 2013; Vickers 2009).

It is not surprising, therefore, that for FMPs who lose their seats, the psychological impact is often especially acute and frequently involves prolonged periods of poor mental health. Some FMPs reported feelings and diagnoses of depression and anxiety, often leading to breakdowns. One FMP reported being ‘damaged’ by their time in parliament. Another was diagnosed with ‘complex PTSD’. Relationship problems were experienced by 30% of survey respondents. Because their departure was unexpected, most defeated FMPs had not put in place plans for life after parliament. Even if they did not receive a serious mental health diagnosis, many FMPs still took many months or even years to get back on their feet. As one defeated FMP recounted, they were

supported in the early stages by the locals and others who had supported me during the campaign. But I think most people, including many of my personal friends, didn’t really understand why I just didn’t bounce back and why I was still dwelling on the election loss months later.

Several FMPs talked of the suicide of other former MPs, or their own thoughts of suicide. As one FMP explained,

I've … heard that [a FMP] committed suicide … When I was there, I had nothing in front of me and I could have easily done that … I've got nothing else … Emotionally that's how I felt. I didn't think of suicide, but I can understand how some people do.

The experience of psychological distress was not exclusive to MPs whose departure was unplanned. Several FMPs who had retired voluntarily also recounted periods of exhaustion, acute depression and anxiety, while others reported a sense of loss of identity, self-worth, relevance, or purpose.

Irrespective of whether FMPs departed parliament voluntarily or involuntarily, our interviews confirmed that psychological distress was most acute in the first two years after leaving parliament, with several FMPs reporting that the period of adjustment took up to six years. Initially, many were reluctant to re-engage in society by attending community events or even leaving the house. For example, one FMP recounted that it

it took me 12 months. I probably had a bit of a phobia about going places … with people’s expectation of me or non-expectation of me … I won’t say I become a recluse, but I was very happy to … restrict my social engagement.

FMPs were asked if they thought psychological counselling support would have been beneficial to them. The response was overwhelmingly in the affirmative, although a number of respondents emphasised that any psychological assistance should be tailored to the unique experience of FMPs. As one former MP explained,

ordinary counsellors do not understand the angst and what you go through. They really don't. It's … quite specific … Very few people understand it. Your family bears the brunt of it … It's so much in the public eye, so you have to [have a] really stiff upper lip. I was determined no one was going to see how hurt I was, and I don't think GPs and others really understand … [that] it's a crisis, really, for a lot of people.

Post-parliamentary employment, unemployment and underemployment

While there have been no systematic studies of the post-parliamentary career paths of Australian legislators, evidence from other jurisdictions indicates that the popular notion that there is a ‘revolving door’ between government and the upper echelons of the corporate and public sectors is not grounded in evidence. For example, González-Bailon, Jennings, and Lodge (2013) found that only 15% of the more than 1000 individuals who served in the UK parliament or as high-ranking civil servants between 1970 and 2008 obtained corporate directorships after leaving office. Similar outcomes have been found in studies of former legislators in the US (Herrick and Nixon 1996), Germany (Claessen, Bailer, and Turner-Zwinkels 2021; Würfel 2018) and Denmark (Hjelmar, Pedersen, and Pedersen 2022). This research supports Lewis and Coghill’s (2005) observation that it is backbenchers, who make up the overwhelming majority of FMPs, who face the most uncertain post-parliamentary employment outcomes.

It is also consistent with our own findings that for FMPs who left parliament before they were ready to retire, finding work was often challenging. In our survey, 53% of respondents took at least six months to secure paid employment, 28% took between six and 12 months, and a further 12% took 18 months or more to find work. Many respondents could also be described as ‘underemployed’ (International Labour Organization 1999). Approximately 18% of respondents described themselves in this way, with the figure higher amongst women (25%) than men (14%). This gender-based discrepancy has also been noted in other sectors where transitory career paths are common, such as in corporate management (Patterson, Damaske, and Sheroff 2017). Of the two major parties, former Liberal MPs were more likely to regard themselves as underemployed (26%) than former Labor MPs (10%). Most of these FMPs had developed what might be described as ‘portfolio careers’ (Handy 1994), combining paid roles with voluntary positions in community organisations. Expectations of moving to board positions or other leadership roles were typically not achieved, a point we expand upon below.

In Victoria, the average length of a parliamentary career is two four-year terms, and MPs are, on average, 49 years old when they leave, which is well below the typical retirement age (Victorian Parliamentary Library & Information Service 2021). Unemployment and underemployment of FMPs also means that the community does not benefit fully from their valuable skills and experience. While there is likely to be a variety of reasons behind the poor labour market outcomes faced by FMPs, our research suggests that one important driver is the negative perceptions of FMPs and their market value held by potential employers and executive recruitment agencies (ERAs).

Difficulties securing post-parliamentary employment

Almost all FMPs who had sought employment in their post-parliamentary life, including those with planned departures, reported that their efforts were hampered by their time in politics. Many reported that employers and boards had rejected their applications for roles, despite the applicants’ apparent suitability, in order to avoid any perception of political bias. One defeated FMP reported that

the sorts of jobs I was going for were generally in the not-for-profit space, in my policy background areas. But no one would go near me at all and I think it was … [because] they didn't want someone in either a senior management position or CEO who was a member of [a political party] because it would be too difficult for their organisations in terms of seeming not to be biased.

Another MP who lost their seat, and applied for a role as a corporate CEO, recounted that the

very first recruiter I went to … said to me, you are absolutely the perfect fit, but I'm not going to waste your time and put you forward … you weren't a backbencher. You were a minister. That makes you poison.

For similar reasons, several FMPs who had short parliamentary careers suggested that they would have had a better career trajectory had they not gone into politics. Meanwhile, several respondents had begun their own businesses because they were unable to find other employment.

Our survey asked respondents about their income in their first post-parliament role. Sixty-four percent of respondents reported earning an income ‘slightly’ or ‘significantly’ below that of a PoV backbencher at the time. The other end of the financial spectrum is dominated by men, with 20% of male FMPs reporting securing a position that paid above a backbench salary, and most in this category (17%) reporting that this job paid ‘significantly’ more than a backbencher. In contrast, not a single woman FMP reported finding a post-parliament job that paid more than the backbench salary, with most (57%) reporting receiving ‘significantly’ less, and some recounting long periods of financial hardship. As one female FMP explained:

I had done no financial preparation … [It would have been helpful] if three months before the election someone had sat down and talked to me about my finances, or even about my other career options … In the first six weeks, I had no income. No income at all and I was the breadwinner because [my husband] and I couldn’t access my small [amount of] super I'd saved through the parliament because I wasn’t 65 at that time.

Party affiliation appears to have a modest impact on post-parliamentary income-earning potential. Table 2 shows that approximately two-thirds of the 42 ALP respondents to our survey reported a post-parliament income that was below the salary earned by a backbench MP, while 12% of ALP FMPs were able to secure a salary in excess of that of a backbencher. The equivalent figures for former Liberal and National members were higher, with 17% and 22% of FMPs from these parties, respectively, securing positions paying higher than a backbench salary. Former Greens MPs stood out as being especially disadvantaged in the post-parliament labour market: all four of the party’s FMPs who completed the survey were paid less than the salary of a backbench MP at the time of the research.

Table 2. Post-parliamentary income compared by gender and political party affiliation.

	Much less than backbench salary	Slightly less than backbench salary	About the same as backbench salary	Slightly more than backbench salary	Much more than backbench salary
Gender
Male	30 (47%)	12 (19%)	7 (11%)	2 (3%)	11 (17%)
Female	16 (57%)	2 (7%)	1 (4%)	–	–
Political party affiliation
Labor	21 (50%)	7 (17%)	4 (10%)	1 (2%)	4 (10%)
Liberal	17 (49%)	5 (14%)	3 (9%)	–	6 (17%)
National	4 (44%)	2 (22%)	–	1 (11%)	1 (11%)
Greens	4 (100%)	–	–	–	–
Independent	–	–	–	–	–
Other	1 (50%)	–	1 (50%)	–	–

Finally, while we found no correlation between the age at which an MP leaves parliament and their experience of post-parliamentary financial and employment challenges, these factors appear to be impacted by the duration of time served in parliament. Among our respondents who served four years or less, 62% reported experiencing financial problems when they left parliament. This figure steadily decreases as duration of service increases, with those serving for 17 years or more rarely reporting financial difficulties.

Executive recruitment agencies are not helpful

Of the FMPs interviewed who had used the services of an ERA, the overwhelming response was that they were unhelpful in assisting the FMP to secure employment. There appear to be several reasons why this is the case. First, it is clear that ERAs have low awareness of what parliamentarians actually do, and therefore do not appreciate the many transferrable skills that MPs develop through their work. As one FMP recounted, the ERAs

had no idea what to do with an ex-MP … I didn't get one interview … and I must have been registered with at least half a dozen, if not more. They literally just didn't know what the skills are to be an MP … They just had no idea what it meant to manage … policy and portfolios. They just don’t have any concept [of a parliamentary career].

Other FMPs found that their interaction with ERAs was unprofessional, and sometimes almost voyeuristic: one FMP suggested ERAs set up a meeting only ‘to get the inside deal of what it’s like on the other side’. Another reason that ERAs have not been helpful in securing work for FMPs is the strong perception, shared by ERAs and potential employers, that former politicians will be unsuitable for roles because of their party-political affiliation. As FMP recounted,

what the head hunters would say was look, if [your party] was in government … it would be fine to employ you because we wouldn’t be offending the government of the day. But because you were completely opposite to the government of the day, we can't use you.

The ERA consultants we interviewed explained that employers have pre-conceived ideas about former parliamentarians. One respondent summed up this negative perception as ‘we don’t need someone to attend openings, we need someone to work’. Whilst some ERA consultants understood that the non-public work of parliamentarians could be valuable in the private sector, they suggested that employers often ‘don’t understand the role of politicians, don’t think much about it … [and when they do] have general negativity towards the government/opposition’. As one respondent starkly put it, ‘backbenchers aren’t known. No-one knows what they do’.

It is also difficult to identify the right role for an FMP. This respondent, who had worked in executive recruitment before entering parliament, explained,

unless their skills are specific in relation to that job, it's very hard to make an appointment … If you've been an MP for a long time, even four or five years these days, the way technology has moved on … Has the person kept up with the advances in their particular professional discipline? … If they haven't … there's better candidates. So, unless a company [that] specifically wants somebody who's got that connection with government … it's hard to see where the specific skills come in.

The potential hubris of FMPs was also cited as a concern. ERAs noted that ‘politicians have [an] over-filled sense of their own importance … [because they have] been pre-selected, been elected, and always guest of honour’, and that the skills ‘that make them successful in politics may be seen as [a] risk to [an] employer – combative, not [a] team player and so forth’. Nevertheless, some ERAs did recognise several strengths of FMPs, including a deep knowledge of certain sectors and extensive networks. Some noted that female MPs are seen as particularly resilient, either by character or from experience, when compared with male MPs and the general population. They also identified three indispensable measures that MPs could take to improve the transition to life after parliament: pre-planning, continuous education and coaching. It is to these practical measures, and particularly the role of parliaments in supporting them, to which we now turn.

Preparing MPs for life after parliament: the role for parliaments

Members of parliament typically dedicate much of their lives to community service, often at significant detriment to their personal and familial wellbeing (Docherty 2001; Weinberg 2012; Flinders et al. 2020). It is fair to argue, therefore, that society owes FMPs a duty of care at what is often a particularly vulnerable time in their personal and professional lives (Roberts 2017). Moreover, the manner in which legislators leave office and their post-parliamentary personal and professional lives have potentially profound implications for the functioning of democracy (Baturo 2017; Hjelmar, Pedersen, and Pedersen 2022; Keane 2009; Roberts 2017, 2019a; Theakston 2012). This is because ‘any healthy system of representative democracy depends on a reasonable degree of “fluidity” between those who are elected to serve in political office and those whom they represent’ (Roberts 2019a, 398). Thus, there is a democratic argument for mitigating the potential psychological, financial and professional risks of seeking, gaining and relinquishing political office. While MPs themselves, as well as political parties, the media and the broader community should all play a role in supporting better transitions out of parliament, we argue that there is a critical and unique role for parliaments as a workplace. Based on our research with Victorian FMPs and survey of 33 other Commonwealth parliaments, we recommend five key initiatives that could enable parliaments to better support FMPs in their transition to life after parliament.

First, we recommend that all parliaments should offer training and support programmes for MPs, to prepare them from the outset of their parliamentary career for the inevitable end of that career. These programmes should be delivered at three critical stages: on entering parliament, mid-way through the parliamentary term, and post-departure. In addition to learning about parliamentary processes, ethical conduct, media training, and other skills, new MPs should be encouraged to think about their careers as transitory. As one interviewee explained:

I think … maybe within 12 months [of an election], there should be some offering to say … I know you don't want to think about losing, but if you did lose, what are you going to do? What is your strategy? So at least you've got some sort of idea that you've got to think about this and be prepared for this eventuality, should it happen.

This should include training to identify and articulate the transferrable skills MPs gain through their parliamentary work, and to develop other skills and networks for a post-parliamentary career. Later in the parliamentary term, and post-departure, the training and support programs should provide the framework for financial, career and psychological counselling. As one of our interviewees remarked,

I was involved in private business before I went to parliament. There's always a package … How to write CVs, how to apply for jobs, where to apply for jobs, just going through all of that process with the former employee. You don’t just say, now clean out your desk and nick off.

While most parliaments offer training programs for new and continuing MPs, only six of the 33 other Commonwealth jurisdictions that we surveyed provided opportunities and inducements for sitting members to develop skills that are transferrable to their post-parliamentary careers.

Second, to counterbalance the increasingly toxic treatment of MPs in the media and community, we recommend that parliaments should work to create more gravitas and respect around the departure from parliament. Departing MPs should be granted the opportunity to give a valedictory speech in order to formally and publicly thank their family, staff and the community. Departing MPs could also be offered an official testimony of their time in parliament, thereby providing an official account that sits alongside, and perhaps corrects, the media’s version of that parliamentary career. Additionally, sensitive practical assistance should be provided to departing MPs to vacate their electoral offices and return parliamentary property.

Third, parliaments should provide former MPs with sufficient financial support comprising an adequate pension, or failing that, a transition payment sufficient to support the FMP in the medium term (e.g. up to eighteen months). Only one of the Commonwealth parliaments surveyed, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, currently provides transitional support commensurate with this level of need. In 2004 in Victoria, following the federal government and other Australian states, the parliamentary pension was replaced with a transition payment, calculated on the basis of time served. This change has led to a considerable number of FMPs experiencing financial stress after serving one or two terms. Although a return to the pension might be politically unfeasible, and noting that any discussion of MPs’ remuneration is highly contentious, we recommend a transition payment should be paid on an as-needs basis, rather than according to time served. This shift would not necessarily lead to an overall increase in total spending, but the better targeting of funds would reflect the varied experience of MPs following their exit from parliament, including, for many, poor mental health, practical challenges and difficulties in securing employment for a prolonged period. MPs should also be offered access to financial planning services during and after their time in parliament.

Fourth, parliaments should offer ongoing access to counselling and psychological support services that meet the specific needs of former MPs. Of the 33 parliaments (in addition to PoV) which provided information for this research, 16 parliaments provided additional mental health services beyond those available to the general public. None of these arrangements were designed to provide psychological services in the long-term, with the longest support period of 15 months post-parliament being provided to former members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and their dependents. Our research, however, found that some FMPs took up to a year or more to be able to speak about their experience. For this small number of people, the 15-month window for counselling is too short, and an ongoing service would be more appropriate.

Finally, parliaments should accord former members’ associations formal status, enabling them to receive funding and offer more extensive and structured support for former members. Twenty of the 34 Commonwealth legislatures surveyed for this study have established former members’ associations. These associations, such as the Victorian Parliamentary Former Members Association (VPFMA), can play a vital role in preparing current MPs for life after parliament and in supporting former MPs as they transition out of the institution (Theakston, Gouge, and Honeyman 2007). For example, the VPFMA currently provides psychological support training to former members who take on the responsibility of conducting welfare checks on all FMPs who have departed parliament involuntarily at the previous election. Our research confirmed the benefits of this service. Former members’ associations could also follow the lead of elite sporting bodies (Anderson 2012) by assisting parliaments to provide more holistic support to FMPs throughout their career transitions. For instance, one role they could play is to foster experience-sharing through narratives and storytelling (see e.g. AFL Players Association 2020), with recently departed MPs conveying to current MPs to the story of their career, emphasising its transitory nature and what in many cases will be the lack of control over the timing and mode of its termination.

Conclusion

The roles for modern parliaments are expanding well beyond their traditional remit of providing a house for government (Burns 1999). Many of parliaments’ expanded responsibilities lie in the provision of health and wellbeing for their employees, including MPs. Further, and in addition to basic (and often perfunctory) induction training, parliaments in many jurisdictions are now also required to provide training in ethical conduct and improved workplace culture, particularly with respect to gender discrimination and safety. Our recommendations involve a further expansion of parliaments’ role. As a workplace, and as the institution at the heart of democracy, this expansion is appropriate to ensure our legislative systems continue to attract the best candidates.

This illustrative case study (Levy 2008) of the transition and post-parliamentary outcomes experienced by former Victorian MPs has demonstrated that for many, leaving parliament is a major life transition accompanied by feelings of loss and grief and significant financial and emotional challenges. These challenges are more acute for those who depart involuntarily. Given that our findings are consistent with observations from the (still small) literature on the challenges of transitioning from parliament (Brideson 2006; Byrne and Theakston 2016; Docherty 2001; Roberts 2017, 2019a, 2019b; Shaffir and Kleinknecht 2005; Theakston, Gouge, and Honeyman 2007), we hypothesise that many of these insights could be generalised to other parliaments and former MPs in other jurisdictions. Overall, this research suggests that there is work to be done in this area, especially so that parliaments are able to attract highly capable candidates from diverse backgrounds.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Parliament of Victoria, the Victorian Parliamentary Former Members Association, the Victorian Parliamentary Library and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for supporting this research and Linda Wollersheim for her invaluable research assistance. The project was reviewed and approved by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (Code number HAE-20-099).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Parliament of Victoria.

Notes on contributors

Amy Nethery

Amy Nethery is a senior lecturer in politics and policy at Deakin University. She researches the development and impact of asylum policies in Australia with a particular focus on liberal and democratic principles of policymaking. She has recently edited Refugee Externalisation Policies (Routledge 2023) with Azadeh Dastyari and Asher Hirsch.

Zim Nwokora

Zim Nwokora is a comparative political scientist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University, Melbourne. His research examines theoretical and empirical questions about political party systems, constitutions, democracy and political finance. This work has appeared in such journals as Australian Journal of Political Science, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Governance, Party Politics, Political Research Quarterly and Political Studies.

Peter Ferguson

Peter Ferguson is a Senior Lecturer at Deakin University and Politics and International Relations Discipline Convenor. Peter's first book, Post-growth Politics: A Critical Theoretical and Policy Framework for Decarbonisation (Springer Nature), was published in 2018. He has also published research on environmental politics, ecological security, resilience and environmental political economy in top-ranked academic journals, including Global Environmental Politics, Environmental Politics and the Australian Journal of Political Science.

Matthew Clarke

Matthew Clarke is Alfred Deakin Professor and Pro Vice-Chancellor Researcher Development at Deakin University. He has recently edited the Elgar Encyclopedia of Development (Edward Elgar, 2023) with Xinyu Zhao.

Notes

1 This accounted for every former MP who was alive and had lodged their contact details with the Parliament or the Victorian Parliamentary Former Members Association.