What went wrong for the Greens in the Australian election?

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Greens Face Electoral Setbacks in 2025 Australian Election"

What went wrong for the Greens in the Australian election? analysis cover image The Guardian 8.8
Image Source: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c9a04e7e20937f3475efb86449854103d1702a4f/0_0_5000_4000/master/5000.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=20191637e9d69c548619c7d3b508ce3f
Original Article Source: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/02/what-went-wrong-for-the-greens-in-the-australian-election
View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 8.8
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

In the 2025 Australian election, the Greens faced significant setbacks, losing three seats, including the Melbourne electorate previously held by former leader Adam Bandt. Despite a slight decrease in their national Senate primary vote, which fell by nearly one percentage point from 2022, the Greens managed to retain the same number of Senate seats. Their performance in the lower house remained relatively steady, with a primary vote of 12.22%, placing them third among the national parties, behind the Labor Party and the Liberals. This raises questions about how a party with such a substantial national vote share can end up with a limited number of seats in Parliament, particularly when compared to other parties like the Nationals, whose electoral dynamics differ significantly from those of the Greens.

The loss of seats can be attributed to various factors, including changes in electoral boundaries that disadvantaged Bandt, making his seat more marginal. Bandt himself noted that some voters shifted their support from the Greens to Labor, particularly in Melbourne, where the boundary adjustments played a crucial role. The situation in Queensland was more complex, with the Greens losing two Brisbane seats due to a swing towards Labor, which led to contests that favored Labor candidates due to the distribution of preferences. The intricacies of these three-cornered contests illustrate how minor fluctuations in primary votes can lead to significant shifts in outcomes when preferences are considered. The Greens' challenges highlight the need for a deeper understanding of voting dynamics and the impact of electoral systems on party representation in a diverse political landscape.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article sheds light on the challenges faced by the Greens party in the recent Australian election, particularly highlighting their loss of three seats, including that of former leader Adam Bandt. It raises critical questions about the disparity between the Greens' national vote share and their representation in Parliament, suggesting several factors that contributed to their electoral setbacks.

Electoral Landscape Analysis

The article emphasizes the Greens' relatively stable national primary vote in the lower house and Senate, yet their inability to convert this vote into proportional representation in seats. The comparison with the Nationals demonstrates an important aspect of Australian electoral dynamics: the geographical distribution of votes. While the Greens enjoy a significant national support base, their votes are often concentrated in specific urban areas, which can lead to fewer seats when electoral boundaries shift, as happened in this election.

Impact of Boundary Changes

The article points out that boundary changes significantly affected Adam Bandt's prospects in Melbourne, making the seat more competitive. This aspect illustrates how electoral geography can dramatically influence election outcomes, especially for smaller parties like the Greens that rely on concentrated support in urban centers. The narrative indicates that Bandt's acknowledgment of voters shifting to Labor reflects a tactical voting behavior that could further dilute the Greens' influence.

Voter Behavior and Party Dynamics

The shift of votes from the Greens to Labor suggests a strategic decision among some voters to prevent a Conservative victory. This factor highlights the complexities of voter behavior and loyalty, especially in a political environment where tactical voting is prevalent. The article hints at a potential vulnerability for the Greens, indicating that they may need to reassess their strategies to secure their voter base against shifting allegiances.

Perception and Public Sentiment

The article communicates a sense of concern regarding the Greens' future electoral viability despite their relatively high national vote share. This sentiment may contribute to a perception that the Greens are struggling to translate popular support into political power, which could impact their funding and grassroots efforts moving forward.

Potential Implications for the Future

In the broader context of Australian politics, the challenges faced by the Greens could have implications for coalition-building and policy advocacy, particularly on environmental issues where they traditionally hold significant sway. A reduced presence in Parliament might limit their influence on key legislative developments, potentially affecting public discourse on climate change and social justice.

The overall narrative in the article does not appear to manipulate facts overtly but rather presents a critical examination of the Greens' electoral performance. The language is straightforward, aiming to engage readers in understanding the intricacies of electoral politics in Australia.

Considering the various factors discussed, the article is grounded in factual reporting and analysis, making it a reliable piece for understanding the Greens' current political landscape.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Source URL: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/02/what-went-wrong-for-the-greens-in-the-australian-election

The Greens lost three seats at the 2025 election, including Melbourne, the electorate of their former leader Adam Bandt.

Their national Senate primary vote was down by almost one percentage point compared with 2022, though they have maintained the same number of Senate seats.

Their national lower house vote was steady, with 12.22% of the primary vote in 2025 compared with 12.25% in 2022. This means the Greens are ranked third-highest among the parties, behind only Labor and the Liberals.

So what went wrong for the Greens? And how can a party that has such a high share of the national vote have so few seats?

To show why the Greens’ seat share is so low relative to their national vote, it’s worth comparing them with the other large party that isn’t the Liberals or Labor – the Nationals.

In Queensland and the Northern Territory, the Nationals and Liberals have merged into a single party. However, MPs can choose to identify with one party or the other federally by choosing to sit with either the Liberal or National party room. For the following figures we have separated out Nationals politicians and votes on this basis.

The Greens have a much higher vote share nationally, but end up with many fewer seats:

The reason for this becomes clear when the votes for each party are mapped.

This explains the disparity between their national vote and the number of lower house seats – but to explain why the Greens lost three seats compared with the last election, we need to zoom in.

Going into the 2025 election, Adam Bandt was disadvantaged by a change in electorate boundaries, but this isn’t the only issue he faced.

Again, this is much clearer with a map.

In addition to the redistribution, Bandt faced at least some voters switching from the Greens to Labor, which Bandt acknowledged after conceding:

“In Melbourne, the boundaries changed and made the seat much more marginal, and I feel that a number of people shifted their votes to Labor to keep [Peter] Dutton out,” he said.

The situation in Queensland is a bit different, and to explain the loss of two of the Brisbane seats, we need to get into some maths. Yes, that’s right – maths, not maps.

This is how the Greens lost Griffith in 2025 – the swing to Labor made it a contest between Labor and the Greens, and Labor won on Liberal preferences. In the seat of Brisbane, the Greens didn’t make the final two and Labor won with Greens voter preferences.

These seats are called three-cornered contests, and it can be hard to wrap your head around how small changes in the primary vote can result in big changes to the two-party-preferred outcome.

Here you can play around with the primary vote and see how things change in our hypothetical electorate:

We’re using the following preference assumptions in our calculator and charts for hypothetical voting scenarios, looselybased on actual preference data from 2022:

80% of Labor voters preference the Greens before Liberals

80% of Greens voters preference Labor before Liberals

70% of Liberal voters preference Labor before Greens

Thanks to Jill Sheppard at ANU for providing feedback on a draft of this feature. Any errors remain the fault of the authors.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian