The Greens have adopted confrontation and self-declared populism. Can they bring voters along with them?

Election losses have prompted the Greens to adjust their political strategy, moving from cautious confrontation with Labor to open rivalry. Following their defeat in the 2025 federal election, including the loss of leader Adam Bandt, the party has grappled with two opposing lessons. Under Larissa Waters, the party recognized that its obstructiveness had cost it votes.

However, under David Shoebridge, chosen by the party room, the Greens now believe that conciliation is ineffective in distinguishing them from Labor. These differing interpretations hold some truth, as party strategies often balance policy influence, holding office, and winning votes. After Bandt's tenure, the Greens pursued policy gains through hardline bargaining, but failed to reap the benefits of either opposition or compromise.

Waters' approach of being "firm but constructive" resulted in modest gains, but little change in support. Shoebridge's selection suggests the party now seeks vote gains through direct confrontation with Labor. Despite these shifts, the party's support has not significantly improved, as seat losses are often due to preference flows in tight multi-party contests.

The Greens face the challenge of understanding why disaffected Labor voters are not gravitating towards them. Australia's fragmented party system plays a role, with Shoebridge's pitch relying on the Greens appealing to disillusioned Labor voters if the main competition is between left and right. However, the anti-establishment sentiment may already be embodied by One Nation, which is capturing disillusioned voters and can draw from both Labor and the Coalition.

Replacing Labor may require the Greens to compete on two fronts: winning progressive voters frustrated with the Albanese government and redirecting the flow of voters away from the major parties to One Nation. Shoebridge's leadership framing indicates the Greens could compete on issues of anger directed at the wrong targets and the need for a stronger political movement.

The leadership contest itself highlights tensions within the party, as the party room's consensus-driven leader selection was disrupted by the 2025 election result. With more centers of power and a vocal youth wing, identifying ideological differences between the frontrunners, Shoebridge and Sarah Hanson-Young, proves difficult.

Both advocate for a stronger stance against Labor and building a political movement, but their perceived temperament and reception by voters may be the main differentiators. The Greens are working towards giving members a say in future contests, but the process raises questions about how the new model will address internal conflict and strategic dilemmas.