When I started writing my weekly column Forget the Frontbench, examining the players shaking up Australia’s major party duopoly, a hung parliament looked possible. As the year has worn on, it has become all but a certainty, with the latest Accent/Redbridge MRP putting the odds above 98%. It’s therefore vital to examine the growing third force, the “bums on seats” who can no longer be dismissed as “other” — as polls and graphs regularly do.
So what have I discovered from six months of chatting with our diverse new crossbench? Here are five things I’ve learnt or confirmed through this column so far.
Not everyone can be described as a ‘teal’
“Teal” remains a useful term, when used to refer to a specific blue-green archetype (i.e. Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan, Zoe Daniel, Kate Chaney, Kylea Tink, Sophie Scamps and Allegra Spender). In my profile of teal exemplar Nicolette Boele, I define them as “climate-focused independents who contest wealthy, Liberal seats”, fed up with their lack of moderate representation.
But what journalists often mean when they write “teal” is “community independent”, a category that includes the teals but covers a wider range of candidates, nominated by “Voices of Indi”-type groups. Indi MP Helen Haines, for example, is not a teal, despite the 2022 teals lionising her (WWHD?). There may be more “CI”s come 2025, with campaigns challenging all three majors, including in the regions, with independents coming close in Wannon and Cowper last time.
Figures like Dai Le, meanwhile, suggest that popular locals can and will topple members who take their multicultural seats for granted, even without a big budget — a theory those in Muslim-heavy seats will be looking to test next year.
That’s not to mention influencers like Punter’s Politics and Purple Pingers, who, like many voters, have declared a pox on both major party houses. Both have sought to get into Parliament this year, via very different channels.
‘Left’ and ‘right’ are less clear-cut on the crossbench
One of the things I enjoyed most about this year’s interviews was diving into its various ideologies on the bench — or trying to.
As Bob Katter said in a brief moment of clarity, “left and right” cannot accurately capture him, a socially conservative union man, nor the teals, who are generally assumed to be socially left and economically right. But Katter, who’s won every election since he defected from the Nats in 2001, speaks for Kennedy in his idiosyncratic style.
In fact, many of the crossbenchers are hard to place neatly on a left–right spectrum. As are many Australians, who no longer fit the Labor–Coalition dichotomy.
Mayo’s Rebekha Sharkie holds her cards close, defining herself as the “sensible centre” — understandable, as she was originally elected on Centre Alliance (though can someone please explain the 2PP count to her?). Jacqui Lambie and ex-stablemate Tammy Tyrrell could do with clearer ideologies, often speaking in populist platitudes about fighting for “the little guy” — whoever that is.
Lord knows when it comes to Le (she cancelled our interview last minute), a former Liberal and Sky News darling who urged Labor to reform the regressive stage three tax cuts. But I don’t doubt each aims to speak for their constituents.
Labor’s strict solidarity rules are not suited to this moment
In the opening column of this series, I pondered whether then Labor Senator Fatima Payman would leave the ALP over Gaza. Two months later she did, telling media she saw “no middle ground” in a party that bound her vote under a strict code of conformity.
The episode raised questions about Labor’s 120-year-old rules, which seemed out of step with our diverse, modern society, driving away an impressive young senator. Several party figures spoke out, before the issue quickly died down again.
As I wrote at the time, the rise of independents presents a stark contrast with the ALP, highlighting how Labor MPs are expected to toe the party line, regardless of what their constituents might think. With voters seeing an increasing number of crossbenchers speaking directly for their electorates, Labor’s ironclad unity may end up being an albatross around its neck, costing it voters who would rather have a voice than a number on the Parliament floor.
It might be worth the Labor hardheads noting that indies are these days more likely to win “safe” seats than marginal ones, as political binaries are further upended.
Independents are increasingly working together — with good reason
Sky News Australia is not wrong when it accuses the “teals” of acting like a “party”. While independents are free agents, they often share tips and resources; as academics Mark Riboldi, Ben Spies-Butcher and Phoebe Hayman observe, they’re increasingly being elected with the help of “party-like” structures, providing “organisational benefits for electoral campaigning that have hitherto been seen as unique to parties”.
Organisations like Cathy McGowan’s “Community Independents Projects” and Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200 aim to support indie campaigns — or as Holmes à Court put it as he criticised Labor’s donor reforms, “to level the playing field so that values-aligned independents have a fighting chance against the party machines”.
Some independents even ran under one umbrella in the ACT election, with “Independents for Canberra” leader (and former David Pocock staffer) Tom Emerson promoting the advantages of being a “loose coalition” while still being free to set their own policies. NSW teal MP Jacqui Scruby, who used to work for Steggall, reckons she succeeded in Pittwater this time around partly because Northern Beaches voters had a taste of how effective independents can be.
It’s not just about the campaigns. Former Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe told me she now attends regular meetings with indies from both houses — which was how she gained crossbench support for her calls for action on deaths in custody. Veteran crossbencher Andrew Wilkie even ran training after the election on how to use parliamentary privilege for whistleblowing, teaching new colleagues his old tricks.
Australians are (probably) mature enough to handle what’s coming
Expect scaremongering about the “risks” of a hung parliament to ramp up as the election draws closer, with a majority looking increasingly unlikely for either side.
But as the Australia Insititute’s Richard Denniss and Bill Browne argued in a well-timed discussion paper, “parliaments are designed to share power”. Power-sharing is a regular part of our democracy, with all nine jurisdictions experiencing it in some form over the past two decades. It’s often shared between parties, within parties, and across the House and Senate, where parties rarely secure a majority.
Former crossbencher Rob Oakeshott, who helped Labor form minority in 2010, says power-sharing is a better model than the “elected dictatorship” of the majors, arguing more voices lead to better decisions. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young reckons women are often better at negotiating, as the minor party reconsiders how to approach the next term.
While the political class might not be ready to accept that hung parliaments are here to stay, voters seem to be, with the major party vote continuing its long downward trajectory.
What have you enjoyed from this column this year? What else would you like to see? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
