The Greens had a terrible election. But voters didn’t reject the party

There’s no putting lipstick on this particular pig, although Adam Bandt is certainly trying: Saturday night was a shit one for the Greens.

While Labor benefited from an anti-Coalition, anti-Trump surge, the Greens stalled, their ~12% primary falling slightly. The community independents did well, whereas the Greens lost two of their 2022 gains, Brisbane and Griffith, in part due to Liberal voters switching to Labor. Even Bandt’s seat looks shaky, with an unfavourable redistribution and swing to Labor ending Melbourne’s status as a “safe” Greens seat.

That redistribution doesn’t seem to have pushed Samantha Ratnam over the line in Wills, despite the inner-city seat gaining the Greenest bits of Melbourne. They didn’t even come close in other target seats, going backwards in Macnamara, which Labor comfortably held.

Analysts will spend months debating their lacklustre results. Was it their bolshy style and policies, as Bernard Keane and Labor argue? Was it far-right groups like Advance, which targeted the Greens, threatened by the prospect of a progressive hung parliament? Perhaps fear of Trumpism drove voters to the safety of Labor, whose “Don’t risk Dutton” ads falsely claimed voting Green could lead to LNP rule. Or perhaps, concerningly for the Greens, Australians just aren’t that progressive, preferring progress slow and steady, with the minor party having hit their cap, though sadly not a rent cap.

The one solace supporters have is that the party’s vote increased slightly in the Senate, where Labor’s big win means the 11 Greens now hold the sole balance of power — nothing to be sneezed at, though some have tried. But can the Greens ever find real success in the House of Representatives? Or are they destined to remain a party of the Senate, where their decent vote share can actually win them a proportional share of power?

Some have argued the party hasn’t won its fair share of seats, with a 12% vote netting around 1% of seats. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles in single-member electorates, where third parties need to concentrate their votes to win (see: the Nationals, who win ~10% of seats off ~10% of the vote), as well as relying on preference flows. There’s a reason the Democrats never made inroads in the House. A major party like Labor, meanwhile, can win 60% of seats from 35% of the primary — almost as unrepresentative as the UK share, where first-past-the-post makes matters worse.

And while the Greens struggle to make gains, independents are continuing to win and hold seats (Goldstein pending). This may have something to do with the demographics they contest, with small-l liberals now lacking a party. But it’s clear there are also advantages to running as an independent, including tailoring policies and promising to speak for a given seat — something parties cannot do while trying to win multiple. It’s no doubt frustrating for the Greens to watch climate-focused indies win seat after seat. But that seems to be what communities want.

The Senate, meanwhile, is where the Greens have something resembling proportional representation, holding 14% of the seats (16% had Lidia Thorpe not walked). Saturday was a devastating blow to the minor party’s ambitions of being a major player in the lower house, but it remains relatively powerful in the upper, where Labor will rely on its votes (or those of the Coalition) for the foreseeable future.

It makes sense for the Greens to continue running in lower house seats, ensuring they are represented should a hung parliament arise (though even if it had won all five of the party’s targets, they still wouldn’t have had much of a say, given Labor’s thumping of the LNP). But unless the Greens can increase their primary, it may be that the House is just not their home, with the Senate the only place they’ll regularly hold power. What luck for the Greens that the federationists implemented a house of review, to provide checks and balances on the government of the day.

Another question remains: how should the Greens use their renewed balance of power in the Senate ahead?

The prime minister believes, of course, that they should “get out of the way”, with some claiming “blocking” led to Max Chandler-Mather’s loss in particular — a case undermined by the fact that the Greens vote increased in the Senate, where the supposed “blocking” occurred.

Bandt and co have some serious questions to answer, but Labor is kidding itself if it chooses to believe progressive voters wholly disapproved of the Greens’ performance, or that the Senate can be disregarded. The minor party still has a primary and Senate count a third of the size of the ALP’s — though it remains an eternal debate how much of a say this entitles them to.

At the end of the day, despite the colour, the lower house floor may not be the Greens’ place, with a mountain to climb to win single-member seats. But for as long as the Greens remain a force in Australian parliament, they’ll remain a thorn in Labor’s side — specifically the right-hand side, in the red chamber, where Labor will likely never see a majority without them.

Was Labor’s victory a rejection of the Greens?

We want to hear from you. Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au to be published in Crikey. Please include your full name. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.