Teal or no teal? Why these independents might stay solo

On paper, the idea of a teal party makes perfect sense.

What’s not to like about a bunch of strong, independent-minded men and women working together to achieve policy outcomes for their communities?

At a time when support for the two main political parties feels in terminal decline and Australians are crying out for an alternative, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation juggernaut is hoovering up some of the voters who have deserted the main parties, but far from all of them.

There are plenty of people who don’t want to vote for Hanson or one of her candidates, but for whom a centrist party that isn’t Labor or the remnants of the once broad-church Coalition is an attractive idea.

So, could it work?

And just as crucial, could it happen?

It’s worth remembering that we’ve seen this movie before. Back in 1977, Victorian Liberal Don Chipp split from the party and formed the Australian Democrats, a balance-of-power Senate party that, in Chipp’s words, was formed to “keep the bastards honest”. The party was a success for most of its three decades, but its last remaining MPs lost their seats and left the Senate in 2008, replaced by the Greens.

The current proposal isn’t exactly the same. Sydney-based independents Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender are most receptive to the idea. Both women have confirmed that discussions have been held about setting up a new party.

But the response from the rest of the teal independents has been lukewarm at best; Melbourne-based MP Monique Ryan and Perth-based Kate Chaney have ruled themselves out this term, while Sydney MPs Sophie Scamps and Nicolette Boele have left the door open to the prospect some time in future, but only if their constituents back the idea. Canberra senator David Pocock, well, he is lukewarm. Other independents such as Helen Haines and Andrew Wilkie are vehemently against joining – a political alliance with inner-city Sydney and Melbourne would not work for them at all.

To be a success, a new centrist political party needs to be more than a handful of independents coming together under a loose banner.

The idea of a new political party has been floated because of the decline of the Liberal Party, which has lost a raft of affluent, formerly safe Liberal seats in Australia’s major capital cities.

The Liberals’ shift to the right – which began under Peter Dutton and continues under Angus Taylor, who is attempting to ward off the threat posed by One Nation – has accelerated the process.

But to be credible, a new teal or community independents party would need to actually recruit some Liberal moderates to the cause – think, for example, senators Maria Kovacic, Andrew Bragg, Andrew McLachlan, Jane Hume – or, in the lower house, someone such as Tim Wilson, Mary Aldred or Julian Leeser.

Except there is no sign, at least publicly, that any of these MPs have any intention of jumping ship to a new party.

The benefit of creating a new centrist political party is that it would give centrist voters someone to back if they can’t bring themselves to back Labor or the Coalition. If it were to achieve party status (five MPs), the leader of the party would receive a pay rise and more staff would follow.

But that’s not the reason to do it.

The reason to do it, at least in the eyes of people such as Spender and Steggall, is political relevance. In a parliament in which the government holds an all-powerful 94 seats, crossbench MPs can bang the drum for their causes, pull stunts and launch tax white papers. But if the government isn’t interested, their ideas are going nowhere.

A centrist political party comprising teal MPs and former Liberals is a promising base from which to start a new political movement.

However, there’s at least one major road block to the idea, something that some of the crossbench MPs acknowledged on Monday.

The teals were elected promising to restore integrity in politics and on the promise to represent their communities in Canberra, rather than to represent Canberra in their communities.

If the party were to go ahead, the formerly independent MPs might be able to argue they haven’t broken a promise to their voters.

But one of the major reasons people have voted for them in such large numbers – the fact that they are not beholden to a party and a political machine – would be gone.

Do they really want to risk that backlash?

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.