The former is widely applauded and regarded as evidence of the limitations of political parties and the lack of trust in a political system dominated by parties. The number of serious independents coming forward grows by the day. Whatever the outcomes, next election their presence is evidence of an undoubted desire for more independents in Parliament.

Independent behaviour within parties, on the other hand, is derided as chaos and evidence of the inability of the party leaders to control their party members. In the Coalition, Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce retort, in colourful language, that rather than evidence of chaos, such independent thinking shows the superiority of their parties over the Labor Party for their ability to tolerate internal dissent. That argument strains credulity.

In the most recent case, Bridget Archer, the Liberal MP for the marginal Tasmanian seat of Bass, crossed the floor after seconding a motion by independent Helen Haines to bring forward debate on a bill to establish a federal integrity commission, against the wishes of the government. The attempt having failed, she briefly sat alone on the parliamentary benches and then was promptly called in to a meeting with Morrison, deputy leader Josh Frydenberg, and the senior woman in the Liberal Party, Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne. Hardly the valuing of an independent view.

Is any form of independence a viable alternative within the major political parties? Is it rewarded in any way, firstly by party authorities and secondly by the voters in the electorate?

Some facts are in order.

First, Australia's major political parties are notoriously disciplined. Labor may be historically and philosophically more disciplined, but the Liberals and Nationals are also very disciplined. All party MPs are expected to vote with their party. Stable government relies on governments supported by reliable majorities (party members and other supporters) on the floor of the lower house. The job of the government Whip is to ensure this happens.

Secondly, advancement towards ministerial positions in your party's government depends on being regarded as a team player. Party "renegades" rarely, if ever, advance. They may be tolerated in rare circumstances, but they are regarded as an irritation or worse by leadership in most circumstances.

Thirdly, crossing the floor - that is, voting against the government - is not always an immediate hanging offence, but life is often made more difficult for that person. The same is true for anyone who speaks up against their government on the floor of Parliament. The situation is worse when the numbers are tight, as is the case now. "Letting the side down" is the allegation levelled against any offender.

Fourthly, there are rare exceptional occasions, known as free or conscience votes, when independence by MPs is allowed. Generally such occasions are restricted to a small number of life-and-death or sexual morality issues. Parties fight against any extension of the scope of such votes to other issues, like integrity or climate change.

Bridget Archer is not alone. On the conservative side of the Coalition parties there are "independents" like Craig Kelly (now an actual independent) and George Christensen (retiring at the next election) in the House of Representatives. There are others in the Senate, including Gerard Rennick (Queensland) and Alex Antic (South Australia) who have threatened so-called independence against the government unless it overrides state-government-mandated vaccination. There is also Matt Canavan (Queensland), a former minister, who has become a rebel, apparently sacrificing a ministerial career in exchange for his independence (at least for the time being).

Slightly different is independence from factional alignment withing political parties. The best example is Andrew Leigh, the Labor MP for Fenner in the ACT. He has refused to join a faction, and seems to have suffered for it when ministerial and shadow ministerial positions were voted on by his peers.

READ MORE:

In assessing independence within political parties, there are many variables. For such an MP, say Bridget Archer, to survive, they must firstly maintain the support of their local party and not lose preselection. Then they must keep winning their seat. That depends on how their independence is viewed by the electorate. It might even help them keep a marginal seat, but it could also bring them down. It all depends on what they decide to be "independent" about.

Like a true independent, party dissidents must decide whether they can achieve more inside or outside a major party. Intraparty independence is a halfway house of sorts between party loyalism and full independence. It is not only rare, but rarely sustainable.

The occasional exhibition of independence may not always do lasting harm to a career. There are examples of members who have crossed the floor once or twice and later risen to ministerial heights. Barnaby Joyce himself flirted with independence and crossed the floor in his early days as a rebellious senator from Queensland.

Such independence is often applauded in the wider community as a way of breaking down strict party barriers and injecting some flexibility into the otherwise rigid parliamentary system. At best it can be compared to the benefits that true independents bring to our parliaments, by helping to remove the worst edges from a brutally disciplined and adversarial parliament.

Good luck to those who try to lead such a life within one of our major parties. With rare exceptions, such careers are likely to be "nasty, brutish and short".