Zali Steggall is looking for an edge. Seven years after unseating a former prime minister in Warringah, the independent MP is staring at a political landscape that no longer resembles the one she entered. The rules have changed. The competition has evolved. And for the first time, the prospect of a formal "teal party" is moving from whispered corridor gossip to a serious, if fraught, strategic debate.

For years, the crossbench has operated on a simple premise: they are not a party. They are a collection of community-focused representatives, bound by shared values but untethered by the rigid discipline of a caucus. That distinction is now under pressure. With new electoral funding laws set to tilt the playing field toward the major parties, some independents are beginning to wonder if their loose coalition is a liability in a game that rewards scale.

The Math of the New Rules

The catalyst for this shift is a quiet, technical change to campaign finance. Under new laws, major parties will gain the ability to aggregate and distribute campaign funding across seats with unprecedented ease. The numbers are stark. While an individual candidate might be capped at $800,000 in spending, a major party can deploy up to $90 million across the national map.

"It is not a level playing field," says Curtin MP Kate Chaney. For the independents, the math is brutal. They rely on local fundraising and grassroots energy. The major parties, by contrast, are building a financial fortress.

This isn't just about money. It is about survival. If the independents remain fragmented, they risk being picked off one by one as the major parties consolidate their resources. If they form a party, they gain the financial and logistical infrastructure to compete. But they lose the very thing that got them elected: their independence.

A House Divided on Strategy

Not every crossbencher is convinced. The regional independents, including Bob Katter and Rebekha Sharkie, have rejected the idea outright. Andrew Gee, who left the National Party to sit as an independent, was blunt: "Having just escaped one, I’m not joining another."

There is a deep-seated fear that a party structure would inevitably lead to the same top-down control that alienates voters from Labor and the Coalition. For many, the "teal" brand is synonymous with community-first politics. A party, by definition, is a top-down entity.

Senator David Pocock has acknowledged the internal conversations but remains on the sidelines. He sees the value in better coordination, yet he stops short of endorsing a formal party structure. The consensus among the skeptics is clear: the independents are more effective as a bloc of individuals holding the balance of power than as a junior party fighting for relevance.

The Case for Evolution

Steggall, however, is looking toward 2028. She sees a vacuum. With One Nation gaining ground and voters expressing deep frustration with the status quo, she argues that the current model may have reached its limit.

"You have to keep meeting the field of play," she says.

It is a pragmatic argument. If the goal is to represent the community, what happens when the community is no longer served by the current system? If the major parties successfully squeeze out new ideas, the independents may have no choice but to build their own vehicle.

Key Takeaways

  • Financial Pressure: New electoral laws allow major parties to spend significantly more than independent candidates, forcing a rethink of campaign strategy.
  • Ideological Tension: While some MPs see a party as a necessary evolution to maintain competition, others fear it would destroy the grassroots identity that defines the teal movement.
  • The 2028 Horizon: The debate is not about the current parliament, but about how to remain relevant in a future where major party dominance is being reinforced by legislative change.

What remains unclear is whether the independents can find a middle path. They could create a loose association that shares resources without imposing party discipline. Or, they could hold their nerve and hope that their individual brands remain strong enough to weather the coming financial storm. The next election cycle will be the test. By then, the question won't be whether they should have formed a party — it will be whether they can afford not to.