This is an absolutely genuine question that I've never really found the answer to. If one is in agreement with the Australian Greens policy platform, which as far as I can tell maps closely to the policies Teal candidates bring to the elections, what is the purpose of the Teals, and why don't people keen on the Teals just vote/support the Greens?
- Perception probably plays a strong role. For a voter thinking of swinging to vote differently, this is not just, "Do I like this particular candidate (either an independent or a Green)", but also, "Does this particular candidate have a realistic chance to win?" The breakthrough for the independents movement came when they answered both of those questions in many voters' minds.
- The indies and The Greens are structurally different. Any party has to find a way to manage differences of opinion between one area and another. To do this, they manage their policies in the party room. An independent does not have this conflict between areas, so their policies are managed more publicly in their community and then publicly in the parliament. So while there are advantages and disadvantages for a party and for an independent, perhaps for some independent voters, they preferred independence?
For more info on this second point - here's an article that discusses how Australia's constitution was written with the intent for federal parliament to avoid the party stranglehold that had already emerged in Australia's colonial states:
Good question Gemma! This article is notable for its lack of mention of the Greens. This is particularly notable because the Greens processes are grounded in transparency, accountability and participatory democracy, with policy and processes being detemined by members, decisions at all levels of the party being made as much as possible by consensus ( which is mandated in the Greens constitution) and for decisions by Greens MPs in parliaments being consistent with Greens policies.
Plus every one of the achievements listed in the article ( and many more) are also achievements of Greens MPs rather than independents alone.
My sense of policy differences is that the teal independents are actually much vaguer and less specific about their policy platform than the Greens are, in particular in their economic agenda, in order to appeal to a broader range of voters - which can be considered to be less transparent and less authentic than the Greens approach.
Plus there is considerable value in having a party, where the party is grounded in grassroots democracy, both for coherence and presence across the country and an ability to continue ongoing advocacy over decades that is not reliant on individuals.
I speak (as many readers will know) from a perspective as a founder of the greens in victoria 32 years ago, and as a recently retired Greens senator, and someone who has an ongoing commitment to good collaborative and democratic process in the party and beyond.
And someone who thinks the teal independents in the parliament are overwhelmingly excellent people doing excellent work!
Thank you, Janet, Gemma and Dorothy, for these reflections on the role of Community-backed Independents (Teals) and their relationship to both the Australian Greens and party politics in general. Here are my thoughts addressing some key points raised:
The emergence of Community-backed Independents represents a powerful evolution in Australian democracy—one that seeks to work collaboratively across all parties to achieve meaningful outcomes. While their policy priorities may occasionally align with those of other parties, Community-backed Independents represent a distinct, non-partisan model of governance that is grounded in accountability to their local communities rather than party platforms or ideological alignments.
1. The Distinctive Role of Community-backed Independents
Community-backed Independents succeed because they are hyper-local and community-driven. Unlike party-affiliated candidates, whose priorities must align with a national platform, these Independents work directly with their electorates to address the unique needs of their communities. Their accountability flows from their constituents, not a party room. This approach resonates with voters who feel disillusioned by the partisanship and inflexibility of the traditional party system.
This model has proven particularly effective in engaging voters across the political spectrum, including moderates and conservatives who may not feel comfortable with broader party ideologies. Community-backed Independents provide these voters with a pragmatic, issue-focused alternative that places local representation above political affiliation.
2. Why Voters Choose Independents
For many voters, choosing an Independent is about trust and representation. Community-backed Independents offer a practical, results-oriented approach to governance that is not beholden to party discipline or factional interests. This independence allows them to build coalitions within parliament that transcend party lines, focusing on shared goals rather than divisive politics.
Additionally, Community-backed Independents have demonstrated their ability to win in areas traditionally dominated by major parties. This success shows that voters trust their ability to deliver outcomes and value their independence as an asset, not a limitation.
3. Clarity and Transparency in Priorities
While Community-backed Independents do not subscribe to a national party platform, they are transparent about their priorities, which include climate action, political integrity, and gender equality. These priorities are shaped through robust consultation with their communities, ensuring that their actions in parliament reflect the needs and values of their constituents.
The perception that Community-backed Independents are "vaguer" may arise because they do not adhere to a broad, national platform. Instead, they emphasise pragmatic, achievable goals within a parliamentary framework. Far from being a weakness, this adaptability is one of their strengths.
4. A New Model of Collaborative Governance
Australia’s constitution emphasises the importance of local representation, and Community-backed Independents embody this principle by championing policies and initiatives informed by their electorates. Their willingness to collaborate with all parties is key to their effectiveness. Rather than aligning with a single party or ideology, they seek to build consensus across the political spectrum, ensuring that the needs of their communities remain at the forefront of decision-making.
This collaborative, non-partisan approach contrasts with the increasingly polarised dynamics of traditional party politics, especially Labor and Coalition. By working constructively with others in parliament—regardless of their political affiliation—Community-backed Independents are demonstrating that outcomes matter more than party loyalty.
5. A Broader Vision for Democracy
Community-backed Independents are reinvigorating Australian democracy by offering voters a choice beyond the party system. Their focus on transparency, accountability, and pragmatic solutions complements the work of other parties without being tied to their agendas. Their success is a testament to the value of diverse, independent voices in a parliament that represents all Australians.
It’s also important to recognise the collective impact of diverse parliamentarians, whether they are Independents or members of a party, in achieving significant reforms such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission or legislating emissions reductions. These successes highlight the importance of collaboration and the value of bringing multiple perspectives to the table.
Community-backed Independents represent a distinct and essential model of governance—one that works constructively across party lines to achieve meaningful change. By placing their communities first, they are strengthening Australian democracy and proving that there is more than one way to govern effectively. Their rise should not be seen as a challenge to any one party but as an opportunity to make our political system more representative, transparent, and responsive to the needs of the people.
Hi Sue, thanks for a great article. I agree that the community independents movement is an Australian democratic innovation that we might be able to share with the world.
Can I please ask you some questions:
1. How can we make it so that any community can elect and independent to represent them? (i.e. How do we overcome the inequity that wealthier communities have an easier time advocating for their own interests?)
2. I'm interested in your economic narrative that the independents are a reaction to the failures of neoliberalism, and I agree strongly with this. But I also get the impression that individual independent voters may have differing views on economic policy - ranging from Scandinavian democratic socialism to a return to 'wet' small l-liberalism. So how do independent MPs manage this broad assembly (it's not a 'church'!) It appears to me that if independent MPs pursue more community-generated policy-making (such as citizen budgeting) then they could find a happy economic position with whatever economic policy that a broad cross-section of Australians want. What do you think?
The 2nd question first, clearly we live in challenging times and, like tax reform, we need to put everything on the table and look at what works best. Some are saying we are at 'The complete restructuring of society will be done in a decentralized form' so with Community Independents they are bringing their community's voices, priorities, ideas and concerns to the table and then through a collaborative approach that will involve finding common ground and then building consensus through discussions, problem solving, negotiations, etc. they find the best policies that deliver real results.
Zoe Daniel talks about having a Balanced Parliament rather than a hung parliament which would allow for this type of collaboration and consensus building to occur. The cross bench are constantly listening and talking with each other and to the major parties to find better pathways forward however they are still representing their communities so may have to disagree on some areas which is normal.
When we start having meaningful conversations that allow for all sides to be listened to we can start finding better pathways forward. When we step back as a nation of people we have a lot more in common than in difference it's just that everyone is squabbling over the difference and creating more division, especially the 2 major parties.
Question 1: The Community Independent Project https://www.communityindependentsproject.org/ explains the foundation of how to go about buiding a Voices of community that wants this kind of representation and how to then find a suitable Community-backed Independent Candidate. It has to be driven by the community so it's about getting a bunch of people together to see if there is appetite to bring this about. Here is an article I wrote about Our Quest for Goldstein: https://www.auswhn.com.au/blog/our-quest-for-goldstein/
Anyone can advocate for their own interests if they can get enough people to get active and mobile. There are some great resources and videos on the Community Independent Project's website that can help people get started. It's not so much about wealthier communities, it's about caring for your community enough to want to build take action and bring about change.
1. Yeah the CIP does really good work. I'd like to see the voices of the many leaders in these community campaigns take more prominence.
2. That's interesting, and it's broadening my perspective... It sounds like you're positioning an independent MP more as someone who takes people's ideas to parliament (a process), rather than as a person who declares specific policies in an election platform (a product). This might challenge the mainstream view that 'you need to tell us what we're voting for before we vote'. I'm quite alright with an independent taking a more open approach to policy-making, but this stance probably depends on a healthy amount of trust and optimism in this new kind of politics.
This is an absolutely genuine question that I've never really found the answer to. If one is in agreement with the Australian Greens policy platform, which as far as I can tell maps closely to the policies Teal candidates bring to the elections, what is the purpose of the Teals, and why don't people keen on the Teals just vote/support the Greens?
A couple of thoughts:
- Perception probably plays a strong role. For a voter thinking of swinging to vote differently, this is not just, "Do I like this particular candidate (either an independent or a Green)", but also, "Does this particular candidate have a realistic chance to win?" The breakthrough for the independents movement came when they answered both of those questions in many voters' minds.
- The indies and The Greens are structurally different. Any party has to find a way to manage differences of opinion between one area and another. To do this, they manage their policies in the party room. An independent does not have this conflict between areas, so their policies are managed more publicly in their community and then publicly in the parliament. So while there are advantages and disadvantages for a party and for an independent, perhaps for some independent voters, they preferred independence?
For more info on this second point - here's an article that discusses how Australia's constitution was written with the intent for federal parliament to avoid the party stranglehold that had already emerged in Australia's colonial states:
https://tdunlop.substack.com/p/a-two-party-stranglehold
Good question Gemma! This article is notable for its lack of mention of the Greens. This is particularly notable because the Greens processes are grounded in transparency, accountability and participatory democracy, with policy and processes being detemined by members, decisions at all levels of the party being made as much as possible by consensus ( which is mandated in the Greens constitution) and for decisions by Greens MPs in parliaments being consistent with Greens policies.
Plus every one of the achievements listed in the article ( and many more) are also achievements of Greens MPs rather than independents alone.
My sense of policy differences is that the teal independents are actually much vaguer and less specific about their policy platform than the Greens are, in particular in their economic agenda, in order to appeal to a broader range of voters - which can be considered to be less transparent and less authentic than the Greens approach.
Plus there is considerable value in having a party, where the party is grounded in grassroots democracy, both for coherence and presence across the country and an ability to continue ongoing advocacy over decades that is not reliant on individuals.
I speak (as many readers will know) from a perspective as a founder of the greens in victoria 32 years ago, and as a recently retired Greens senator, and someone who has an ongoing commitment to good collaborative and democratic process in the party and beyond.
And someone who thinks the teal independents in the parliament are overwhelmingly excellent people doing excellent work!
Thank you, Janet, Gemma and Dorothy, for these reflections on the role of Community-backed Independents (Teals) and their relationship to both the Australian Greens and party politics in general. Here are my thoughts addressing some key points raised:
The emergence of Community-backed Independents represents a powerful evolution in Australian democracy—one that seeks to work collaboratively across all parties to achieve meaningful outcomes. While their policy priorities may occasionally align with those of other parties, Community-backed Independents represent a distinct, non-partisan model of governance that is grounded in accountability to their local communities rather than party platforms or ideological alignments.
1. The Distinctive Role of Community-backed Independents
Community-backed Independents succeed because they are hyper-local and community-driven. Unlike party-affiliated candidates, whose priorities must align with a national platform, these Independents work directly with their electorates to address the unique needs of their communities. Their accountability flows from their constituents, not a party room. This approach resonates with voters who feel disillusioned by the partisanship and inflexibility of the traditional party system.
This model has proven particularly effective in engaging voters across the political spectrum, including moderates and conservatives who may not feel comfortable with broader party ideologies. Community-backed Independents provide these voters with a pragmatic, issue-focused alternative that places local representation above political affiliation.
2. Why Voters Choose Independents
For many voters, choosing an Independent is about trust and representation. Community-backed Independents offer a practical, results-oriented approach to governance that is not beholden to party discipline or factional interests. This independence allows them to build coalitions within parliament that transcend party lines, focusing on shared goals rather than divisive politics.
Additionally, Community-backed Independents have demonstrated their ability to win in areas traditionally dominated by major parties. This success shows that voters trust their ability to deliver outcomes and value their independence as an asset, not a limitation.
3. Clarity and Transparency in Priorities
While Community-backed Independents do not subscribe to a national party platform, they are transparent about their priorities, which include climate action, political integrity, and gender equality. These priorities are shaped through robust consultation with their communities, ensuring that their actions in parliament reflect the needs and values of their constituents.
The perception that Community-backed Independents are "vaguer" may arise because they do not adhere to a broad, national platform. Instead, they emphasise pragmatic, achievable goals within a parliamentary framework. Far from being a weakness, this adaptability is one of their strengths.
4. A New Model of Collaborative Governance
Australia’s constitution emphasises the importance of local representation, and Community-backed Independents embody this principle by championing policies and initiatives informed by their electorates. Their willingness to collaborate with all parties is key to their effectiveness. Rather than aligning with a single party or ideology, they seek to build consensus across the political spectrum, ensuring that the needs of their communities remain at the forefront of decision-making.
This collaborative, non-partisan approach contrasts with the increasingly polarised dynamics of traditional party politics, especially Labor and Coalition. By working constructively with others in parliament—regardless of their political affiliation—Community-backed Independents are demonstrating that outcomes matter more than party loyalty.
5. A Broader Vision for Democracy
Community-backed Independents are reinvigorating Australian democracy by offering voters a choice beyond the party system. Their focus on transparency, accountability, and pragmatic solutions complements the work of other parties without being tied to their agendas. Their success is a testament to the value of diverse, independent voices in a parliament that represents all Australians.
It’s also important to recognise the collective impact of diverse parliamentarians, whether they are Independents or members of a party, in achieving significant reforms such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission or legislating emissions reductions. These successes highlight the importance of collaboration and the value of bringing multiple perspectives to the table.
Community-backed Independents represent a distinct and essential model of governance—one that works constructively across party lines to achieve meaningful change. By placing their communities first, they are strengthening Australian democracy and proving that there is more than one way to govern effectively. Their rise should not be seen as a challenge to any one party but as an opportunity to make our political system more representative, transparent, and responsive to the needs of the people.
Hi Sue, thanks for a great article. I agree that the community independents movement is an Australian democratic innovation that we might be able to share with the world.
Can I please ask you some questions:
1. How can we make it so that any community can elect and independent to represent them? (i.e. How do we overcome the inequity that wealthier communities have an easier time advocating for their own interests?)
2. I'm interested in your economic narrative that the independents are a reaction to the failures of neoliberalism, and I agree strongly with this. But I also get the impression that individual independent voters may have differing views on economic policy - ranging from Scandinavian democratic socialism to a return to 'wet' small l-liberalism. So how do independent MPs manage this broad assembly (it's not a 'church'!) It appears to me that if independent MPs pursue more community-generated policy-making (such as citizen budgeting) then they could find a happy economic position with whatever economic policy that a broad cross-section of Australians want. What do you think?
Cheers!
Hi Dorothy,
Thank you for your feedback.
The 2nd question first, clearly we live in challenging times and, like tax reform, we need to put everything on the table and look at what works best. Some are saying we are at 'The complete restructuring of society will be done in a decentralized form' so with Community Independents they are bringing their community's voices, priorities, ideas and concerns to the table and then through a collaborative approach that will involve finding common ground and then building consensus through discussions, problem solving, negotiations, etc. they find the best policies that deliver real results.
Zoe Daniel talks about having a Balanced Parliament rather than a hung parliament which would allow for this type of collaboration and consensus building to occur. The cross bench are constantly listening and talking with each other and to the major parties to find better pathways forward however they are still representing their communities so may have to disagree on some areas which is normal.
When we start having meaningful conversations that allow for all sides to be listened to we can start finding better pathways forward. When we step back as a nation of people we have a lot more in common than in difference it's just that everyone is squabbling over the difference and creating more division, especially the 2 major parties.
Question 1: The Community Independent Project https://www.communityindependentsproject.org/ explains the foundation of how to go about buiding a Voices of community that wants this kind of representation and how to then find a suitable Community-backed Independent Candidate. It has to be driven by the community so it's about getting a bunch of people together to see if there is appetite to bring this about. Here is an article I wrote about Our Quest for Goldstein: https://www.auswhn.com.au/blog/our-quest-for-goldstein/
Anyone can advocate for their own interests if they can get enough people to get active and mobile. There are some great resources and videos on the Community Independent Project's website that can help people get started. It's not so much about wealthier communities, it's about caring for your community enough to want to build take action and bring about change.
I hope this helps.
Thanks, Sue
That was quick, thanks Sue!
1. Yeah the CIP does really good work. I'd like to see the voices of the many leaders in these community campaigns take more prominence.
2. That's interesting, and it's broadening my perspective... It sounds like you're positioning an independent MP more as someone who takes people's ideas to parliament (a process), rather than as a person who declares specific policies in an election platform (a product). This might challenge the mainstream view that 'you need to tell us what we're voting for before we vote'. I'm quite alright with an independent taking a more open approach to policy-making, but this stance probably depends on a healthy amount of trust and optimism in this new kind of politics.
Cheers!
DD
My pleasure and agree with 1.
We live in interesting times as they say so point 2 is about socialising the idea of community independence as a viable option for people.
You may like to read my response yours, Gemma and Janet's comments above as wel;.
Talk soon
Sue