Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Fioritti, Lecturer in Politics, School of Social Sciences, Monash University
The 2025 Australian federal election was defined by its many shock results, from the Labor Party’s thumping victory to the Liberals’ considerable losses.
Another defining feature of this election were the setbacks experienced by the Greens, who lost three seats in the House of Representatives. This included their safest seat, Melbourne, held by leader Adam Bandt.
With the Liberals’ attempt to make sense of their 2025 election loss recently leaked, what lessons did the Greens take from their results?
The Greens wasted no time with their review, finalising it just three months after the election. However, as it wasn’t widely circulated, it has flown under under the radar. So what did it say?
The puzzle behind the numbers
The Greens experienced an election result that, at first glance, is rather confusing.On the one hand, the party received an almost identical primary vote to 2022. That was the “greenslide” election where the party won three additional lower house seats.
On the other, the 2025 vote undid the party’s progress, with the Greens losing three of four seats.
Part of the explanation for this puzzle is the change in preference flows to the Greens that occurred when the Labor vote surged.
In seats where Labor, the Liberals and the Greens are all contesting, and they all get decent shares of the vote, the strength of the vote for the Greens candidate is often less important than whether the Labor candidate remains in the top two once the final three candidates are determined. This is because only preferences of those from third place on are distributed.
When Labor is in third place, preferences of voters who tend to prefer the Greens over the Liberal or Liberal National parties get distributed, often helping the Greens.
But if a Liberal or Liberal National party candidate comes third, those preferences tend to favour Labor over the Greens. That makes Labor much more likely to win the seat.
This does not fully solve the puzzle though. There was also, in most states and territories, a shift in where the Greens’ primary vote occurred. There were declines in inner city seats but growth elsewhere.
While the Greens experienced swings away from them in seats such as Melbourne, which took a 5.3% hit (but was also subject to an unfavourable redistribution), many others saw swings towards the party. The neighbouring seat of Fraser in Melbourne’s inner west recorded a boost of 6.4%.
Some of the party’s most disappointing results were recorded in target seats, while standout results were mostly in seats that weren’t targeted. This raises questions about the Greens’ targeting strategy.
Key review findings
The review concluded the Greens’ focus and positions on the cost of living crisis and what the party called a genocide in Palestine helped their campaign.
This is evident in the party’s stronger performance in more working class Labor heartland seats, where cost of living pressures likely hit voters hard – such as in Fraser, Lalor, Barton and Maribyrnong – as well as in Wills, where Palestine was a leading campaign issue. Interestingly, Wills is the only target seat where the Greens’ vote grew.
The report also identified numerous challenges that harmed the party, particularly when it came to retaining and winning new seats in the lower house. This included:
-
significant shifts in the nature of the campaign over its duration, most prominently the increased anti-Trump sentiment leading to Labor also running hard on a “keep Dutton out” message
-
changes in Greens voter demographics including a decline in support from young men, particularly in target seats
-
challenges differentiating themselves from Labor
-
climate and the environment not featuring prominently on the agenda
-
difficulties retaining and winning new lower house seats
-
the role of third parties, citing attacks from groups such as Advance.
The review also addressed internal issues related to resourcing and outdated campaign approaches and tools.
What’s missing?
While the conclusions drawn in the Greens election review are broadly reasonable, some important developments are overlooked or under-emphasised.
Returning to the party’s targeting strategy, the Greens’ target seat campaigns were broadly unsuccessful, with poor results in target seats offset by better results elsewhere.
This is not unique to this election, with similar trends observed in preceding local government and state elections.
Prior to the next federal election, serious consideration should be given to the potential realignment of the Greens’ support base away from inner-city areas and the implications of this for their targeting strategy.
Something else that should be considered is whether the centralisation of campaigns, and associated reduction in the agency of local campaigners, that tends to occur when seats are targeted, does more harm than good.
On difficulties in the lower house, the party will need to wrestle with the reality that, due to the nature of three-cornered contests, Green victories in these seats will remain vulnerable to major party vote shifts that are outside of their control.
This means that, at least in the near future, while the Senate will likely remain a chamber the Greens can count on for stability across elections, the same cannot be said for the House of Representatives.
Finally, while the Greens benefited from the element of surprise when they won a swathe of lower house seats in 2022, this falls away with incumbency. This means others – both political parties and third-parties – can counter them by developing more effective campaigns that learn from their success.
This is what played out in Queensland in 2024 when Labor effectively adopted Green-lite policies, such as 50 cent public transport fares and emulated the Greens’ volunteer-driven doorknocking methods. Although Labor lost this election, this strategy helped them regain South Brisbane and hold off further Green challenges in surrounding seats.
As the two-party system in Australia continues to fragment, there is potential for the Greens to benefit more from declining support for the major parties. Doing so, however, will mean navigating complex questions and dynamics.
– ref. The Greens’ election review flew under the radar. Here’s what it said – https://theconversation.com/the-greens-election-review-flew-under-the-radar-heres-what-it-said-277514
