Whither the Greens in the wake of the Dorinda Cox defection?

After a disappointing showing in the federal election — in which the Greens lost three out of four of their lower house MPs, including leader Adam Bandt — the minor party this month lost its sole federal Indigenous representative, with WA Senator Dorinda Cox decamping, saying her “values and priorities are more aligned with Labor”.

There’s been no shortage of questions about Cox’s motives. The senator, previously a Labor Party member, faced multiple bullying allegations within the Greens — allegations that hadn’t been resolved, despite the prime minister’s attempts to sweep them under the rug. (Cox last week accused the Greens of racism; as the National Indigenous Times reports, at least three of the complaints lodged against Cox were made by First Nations women.) Such allegations were likely to affect Cox’s next preselection, with decamping to Labor suggested as her best shot at staying in parliament.

Just last month, Cox ran for Greens deputy leader and whip — curious, given her claim that the Greens no longer represented her values (weirdly, no journalists asked what those values were). Greens sources pointed to Cox’s very recent criticism of Labor on First Nations and fossil fuels issues, making it hard to believe her decision was one of principle. As Charlie Lewis notes regarding Labor defector Senator Fatima Payman, Anthony Albanese abruptly changed his tune on whether defecting senators should quit parliament. Funny that.

The Greens are right to feel aggrieved at someone who recently ran for deputy leader jumping ship, though arguably it saves them the trouble of deselecting Cox ahead of the next election, something politically difficult to do. The minor party still holds a balance of power in the upcoming Senate, with the support of its 10 remaining senators enough for the government to pass progressive legislation.

Cox’s defection also opens a goat track for Labor, now on 29 senators, to pass legislation with the other 10 crossbenchers (if it can somehow align One Nation, Pocock, Lambie, Tyrrell, Babet, Payman and Thorpe on a single issue), while working with the Coalition remains the alternative.

Senate numbers aside, the Greens have now lost two Indigenous senators within two terms, admittedly under very different circumstances (Lidia Thorpe left over the party’s position on the Voice referendum, a far more clear-cut reason than Cox’s). It’s an embarrassing outcome for the Greens, who have worked to increase their Indigenous representation but now yet again find themselves unable to field a First Nations spokesperson with lived experience — despite “a bevy of grassroots First Nations members”, as leader Larissa Waters put it.

There also remain questions about what direction the minor party should now take. While many voters still approve of the party’s approach (the Greens primary ended up unchanged on 12.2%, while it won its usual six Senate spots), it’s been a dispiriting few years of failing to make gains, even amid the coming of age of the left-leaning gen Z.

Is there something to Cox’s parting claim, however dubious her motives, that change is made not from the crossbench but from within the government? Is that what older progressives increasingly think, given Labor’s thumping majority, with three Greens MPs replaced with Labor ones?

One of the media’s key arguments for Waters’ leadership is that she comes off as “nice” — less bolshy and aggressive than the party has been painted in recent years, fairly or unfairly. Speaking on Triple J’s Hack yesterday, an upbeat Waters made it clear that the assertive Greens were here to stay, noting their vote remained steady, despite everything thrown at them in the campaign.

Waters rejected repeated suggestions that the Greens were too “obstructive”, saying they were tough negotiators whenever they had “good reason to be”.

“We’re not just being dicks for the sake of it; we dig our heels in when we think the point really matters,” Waters told host David Marchese, adding that the party sought to be constructive without being pushovers. “That’s why people vote Green; they don’t just want us to smile and be nice, they do want us actually to fight for them.”

Indeed, 12.2% of the population approved of the balance the Greens are striking between constructive and obstructive, despite ongoing efforts from many corners to argue the election outcome said the opposite — enough that the minor party still holds major Senate negotiating power.

Unfortunately for the Greens, Cox’s defection gives them one less senator with which to do that.

But fortunately for Team Waters, it doesn’t much matter, with 10 senators still plenty with which to dig their heels in when the point really does.