When Independence Decides It Needs a Party.

There was always something refreshingly untidy about Australia's teal independents. They emerged electorate by electorate, each with its own volunteers, its own grievances and its own reasons for concluding that the established parties had become considerably more interested in themselves than the people they were supposed to represent.

Their appeal rested on a proposition simple enough to fit on a corflute. They were independent. No party room. No factions. No headquarters deciding which opinions were permissible before the morning's first media call.

Last Thursday, Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender announced Community Strong Australia. A new political party. The name was received online with the kind of enthusiasm usually reserved for a car park redevelopment. An ANU politics professor described the naming exercise as a "tough job," which is the academic equivalent of saying the soufflé didn't quite work.

The party promises "unity over division" and "reason over rage." Political movements have always preferred words that nobody can sensibly oppose. Nobody has yet campaigned for unnecessary division and enthusiastic unreasonableness, though Australian politics is working on it. The harder question, what those words require once Parliament sits again, was left, reasonably enough, for later.

The party does have one distinctive feature. It has no leader, and its MPs will not be bound to vote together. Whether this represents a principled rejection of party discipline or simply an accurate description of the founding membership is a question the party has not yet had to resolve.

The other teals have declined to join. Monique Ryan, Helen Haines and Kate Chaney had already indicated they would not enter a formal party structure. Nicolette Boele, member for Bradfield, offered her congratulations along with what may be the most load-bearing non-committal sentence of the parliamentary year: "For now, I am remaining independent. That is the mandate Bradfield gave me, and any decision to change that belongs to my community, not to a press conference." It is not easy to pack that much into a congratulations.

The decision was less surprising than it appeared. The teal wave showed that determined local campaigns could overcome established political machines, which was remarkable. What local campaigns cannot easily do is navigate the increasing complexity of electoral law, build institutions that survive beyond a handful of talented individuals, or fund themselves under rules written by people with a strong interest in the outcome.

Earlier this year, federal electoral reforms capped political donations and introduced new public funding arrangements. Established parties, in exchange for having their fundraising limited, received tens of millions more in public funding. Independent candidates received nothing equivalent. A major party can distribute resources freely across the country, spending little where it's safe and heavily where it matters. An independent is limited to their own electorate and their own cap. The legislation did not say "form a party." It didn't need to.

There is a further detail worth noting. The law that helped nudge the teals toward a party structure is currently before the High Court on constitutional grounds. A leading constitutional law professor has cited a significant risk that at least parts of it will be struck down. Steggall and Spender may have built a political institution in response to electoral law that does not survive long enough to inconvenience them.

Most movements that arrive to challenge the institution discover, in time, that the institution is remarkably patient. For the teals, independence was never simply a legal description. It was the proposition. Voters were invited to believe that decisions would be made closer to home, by people accountable to their communities rather than to a party machine in a building somewhere near the airport.

Community Strong Australia now has the task of arguing that a political party is the most dependable way to keep that promise. The logic is not absurd; the electoral system rewards organisation, and organisation requires structure. But there is something worth pausing over in the spectacle of a movement that built its reputation on standing outside the system quietly concluding that the surest way to remain influential is to join it.

Australian politics has a long history of new parties arriving with agreeable principles and well-designed logos. Some became permanent fixtures. Others became footnotes. The difference has rarely been the principles.

The movement that persuaded Australians to put their faith in independents has concluded that independence may no longer be enough. Whether that says more about the teals or about the system they entered is a question worth keeping an eye on..

If you know someone who’d appreciate this, they probably will. Please share. Sharing's nice.
...
If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more, 'Buy the Goose a Coffee →'.
...
The views expressed are those of the correspondent. Factual claims draw on publicly available sources.