Saturday night was not a good night for the Greens. The minor party didn’t win any of the seats it targeted in Queensland’s LNP landslide. It may have lost one of its existing two — South Brisbane — to Labor, while suffering a swing in the other. So much for “Greensland”.
But nor was it catastrophic, as much of the media triumphantly reported. While Labor suffered a 6.9% swing, the Greens primary was steady but scattered, rising sharply in Brisbane’s outer-south. South Brisbane incumbent Amy MacMahon likely would’ve won if the Liberal how-to-vote had matched 2020’s (she may hold on regardless). It’s not so much a backslide as a stagnation, something presenting its own unique challenges.
The Greens result nevertheless prompted glee in the ALP, which reportedly “took heart” from it. The PM said it sent a “big message” to Adam Bandt, while Senator Murray Watt claimed voters had “buyer’s remorse”, raising talk of reclaiming Griffith. Some sought to make it about Max Chandler-Mather, others about Gaza; Redbridge’s Kos Samaras pointed to ACT and council results as evidence Greens attacking Labor “pushes progressive voters to Labor” (as last week’s column noted, both Greens and Labor voters swung to independents in the ACT).
Bandt and Chandler-Mather have been defensive, arguing it was Labor’s adoption of Greens policies — 50c fares and free school lunches — that wooed back Queensland progressives, and that the Miles government had focused too much on fighting Greens. The party will not change tack, Bandt said, calling on federal Labor to start negotiating. But many would like the leadership to be more “self-critical”, including Democrat-turned-Green Andrew Bartlett, who urged the party to review its “in your face” tone.
When I speak to Bandt on Wednesday, he’s still unwilling to question that approach, arguing that “federal Labor talking points” don’t line up with polling booth feedback.
He’s keen to emphasise Labor’s aping of Greens policies, claiming exit polls show people voted based on things like 50c fares — which “made people’s lives materially and immediately better.” The most he’s willing to admit is that the party needs to do “a better job at explaining” its role in driving such changes.
“One of the lessons we have to draw is, well, what if Labor does decide to implement a number of our policies going into the federal election?” he says, citing dental into Medicare. “I reckon it’d be great because it would make a big difference to people’s lives, but clearly we need to work out how to explain to people that this is only happening because there’s Greens there.”
Federal Labor is unlikely to follow Queensland’s approach, though many wish it would. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has since rejected calls to do so, ruling out a cost of living “free-for-all”. But Bandt says he would be happy if Labor pinched more ideas, arguing his primary goal is to create change.
Even if it means less Greens in Parliament?
“I would like to see both,” Bandt says. “I would like to see the policies implemented and then more Greens elected, so we can get more policies implemented.”
But which would he prefer?
“I would prefer for a repeat of Queensland not to happen,” he adds, arguing Labor’s Greens-focus contributed to the LNP majority. “The way we are going to get progressive reform in this country is by keeping the Liberals out and having more Greens in.”
Labor, however, looks increasingly unwilling to cooperate with the minor party to its left. Antagonism runs deep. Government ministers have bought into the idea the Greens are “extreme” — a perception Bandt says is driven by Advance, the far-right group focused on attacking his party.
“They’ve done their research, they’ve come up with what they consider to be their plan of attack,” he says, arguing Advance sees the Greens as a threat to the big corporations. “We’re now seeing the prime minister and the environment minister mouthing them faithfully as well.”
Bandt denies the Greens have changed, rejecting a common refrain that it is “no longer the party of Bob Brown” (Brown on Monday endorsed the Greens approach).
“When Bob Brown took on George Bush in Parliament, they were saying exactly the same thing about Bob,” Bandt says, noting the party has long focused on more than the environment. “This is not a new line of criticism.”
But there are clear differences between Bandt and Brown, with the former union lawyer placing greater emphasis on presenting a “strong economic offering” for those struggling. “I’ve always held the view that you have to take people’s material and economic concerns very, very seriously,” Bandt says. “Part of my priority has been to try and elevate those policies that have always been there, and that have always been part of the Greens DNA, but I think people haven’t necessarily known about.”
As for claims the current approach is alienating some core cohorts, the member for Melbourne is confident voters understand the party is acting on principle.
“When you take a position that’s different to Liberal and Labor and to the political establishment more broadly, that’s when criticism heats up,” he says, calling out the government’s failure to stand up to Israel. “Over time, people understand— many people understand that’s the right thing to do.”
It’s a big assumption. But one thing the Greens have going for them is the fact voters are increasingly turning away from the major parties — if they can avoid being seen as one of them.
“The days of the two-party system are gone,” says Bandt, expressing hope that Queensland gives the ALP pause. “There are people in Labor who understand that it would be better to have a cooperative relationship. It doesn’t mean we’re going to agree on everything, we’re not. And I think this is something that is contested within Labor.”
The approach towards the “Greens political party” may indeed be contested within Labor. But it’s unclear if either is willing to change approach at this stage, following a sad result from which neither can claim clear vindication.
