Politics for the people? Well, that sounds ideal

I generally enjoy engaging with Mr Fitzsimons as I have found him to be something of an online unicorn (pirate unicorn maybe?): one of the rare people in the social media universe who is open to having his opinion changed by a well-reasoned and evidence-based argument.

However, as with many media professionals and members of the general public, I noticed he tended to conflate the terms "teals" and "independents" - while similar, the two aren't actually interchangeable.

The teals are independents who have been grouped together by political commentators because of their similar political platforms and views.

They are often women, challenging traditionally safe(ish) seats in wealthy, urban areas, who have professional backgrounds across various fields.

They also occupy similar positions on the political spectrum, combining conservative (blue) fiscal politics generally represented by the centre-right Liberal party, with the Green views on climate, and many of them are backed by Climate 200, a political action group that supports candidates who emphasise climate action, political integrity and gender equality.

The blue/green political mix is where the "teal" comes from.

However, much like those mathematics problems we all had to solve in high school, while all teal candidates are independents, not all independents are teals.

Independents that don't connect with this teal platform may not have a specific policy focus or be connected to policy-aligned donors.

Community independents are those such as Helen Haines, for example, who is a professional woman who holds a seat that has been traditionally held by the Coalition (prior to Cathy McGowan), and her political platform includes a focus on issues such as integrity, climate change action, improving democracy and representing the Indi community through engagement and consultation.

However, Ms Haines is not considered to be a "teal" despite sharing some common ground with them.

Her independence is characterised by her commitment to understanding and amplifying the specific needs and values of her constituency, rather than any sort of broader policy-based movement.

It has been suggested the teals are really a political party, with commentators and members of various parties suggesting they are masquerading as independents rather than truly walking the walk of such a political position.

However, while "teals" and "independents" are not interchangeable terms, this doesn't make them any less "independent".

Commonality between the "teal" independents is something that will spark questions about whether they really are operating as a party, but as Mr Fitzsimons pointed out, they lack the structure and organised shared policy approaches that a party requires for such a declaration.

Instead, the independent members of parliament have returned to the roots of what true representation really is.

They're consulting with their communities, amplifying their voices, negotiating policy support with key parliamentarians and joining together on issues their constituents have in common to draw national attention to local issues.

A major case in point would be the recent ALP announcement with regards to the HECS-HELP debt changes.

This is a policy that Dr Helen Haines (independent for Indi) and Dr Monique Ryan (independent "teal" for Kooyong) campaigned for together.

The recent announcement demonstrates just how effective such issues-based collaboration can really be.

When you have independent members of parliament who are unencumbered by national party policy obligations, consulting with and representing the needs of their community constituents at the federal level, seeking out collaboration opportunities with other members of parliament able to do the same, only good things can come for the people they represent.

While the "teals" are not a party, and not all independents are "teals," this doesn't hamper their negotiation power.

When asked what an independent can achieve in parliament when they aren't a member of the government, I will always answer, "they can and do achieve what their constituents need them to, through collaboration, networking and people power."

It sounds ideal, because it is, but it's idealism in practice.

And that's something to behold.