There is something both Monty Pythonesque and Groucho Marx-ist about the decision by two of the nine Climate 200-backed teals in the Parliament to register a new political party of which they are the only members and with no formal leadership structure.
If the teals were crows this would only be an attempted murder.
While not quite dead parrot territory there has to be enough material here for a decent comedy skit. Where is Eric Idle when you really need him?
The Groucho Marx reference is, of course, irresistible. Every other Climate 200 teal, along with the rest of the non-party aligned crossbench, have made it abundantly clear they would not join a party that would have them as a member.
Despite the fact there has been background chatter for weeks about Zali Stegall's plan to turn what is a loose-knit alliance of independents - which, as the Coalition has repeatedly pointed out, tends to vote as a bloc along something suspiciously close to a party line - into the real McCoy, the member for Warringah has failed to convince an overwhelming majority of her partners in teal-dom to take the leap.
This is actually quite understandable. David Pocock, thanks to a combination of innate ability and his presence in the Senate where his vote can make a real difference, has proven to be the most effective of the Climate 200 beneficiaries by far.
He has the ear of the government, the respect of the opposition, the ire of One Nation, a working relationship with the Greens, and one of the highest profiles of any independent since Tony Windsor. Senator Pocock would have little to gain and arguably much to lose from signing up to the euphemistically named Community Strong Australia.
To do so would mean giving up the one thing that truly defines him. That is, that he is not a member of a party, independent of any party line and able to represent his constituents and the national interest as he sees fit.
That is also true of the remainder of the Climate 200-backed MPs who have spent years denying that they constitute a political party and arguing that they are genuinely independent.
Given Labor's massive lower house majority has rendered Stegall, Spender, Monique Ryan, Nicolette Boele, Kate Chaney, Helen Haines, Sophie Scamps and Rebekha Sharkie effectively powerless when the division bells ring, their independence is their only sword and shield.
While, as MPs, they can make often insightful and intelligent speeches on a wide range of issues, their combined votes are not going to change the outcome of a motion brought by the government.
The push for a party seems to be a pragmatic response to legislative changes that have limited the ability of individual Climate 200 candidates to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on campaigning in a single electorate. The upside of a united front of teals, Climate 200 and broader independents (such as Andrew Wilkie) is that it would level the playing field by putting the moderately left-of-centre and self-avowed voice of reason "party" on the same footing as One Nation, the Greens and even the major parties when it comes to raising and spending funds.
While that has its attractions, given that Tim Wilson's defeat of Zoe Daniel in Goldstein in 2025 (after he lost it to her in 2022) shows the teals are not unassailable, the risks of an electoral backlash among former supporters would be great.
There is some truth in Senator James Paterson's observation that: "If they can't even convince the teal MPs in parliament to join their party, I think they're going to really struggle to convince Australians to vote for their party".
