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

Election losses often scar political parties, and scarred political parties tend to overcorrect.

Within 18 months, the Greens have shifted from constrained confrontation with Labor, to cooperation, and now to open rivalry.

Each shift has arrived with a new leader – revealing the party’s continuing dilemmas, but also how narrowly its strategic direction is now decided.

Since losing three of their four lower house seats at the 2025 federal election, including that of leader Adam Bandt, the Greens have realised two opposing lessons.

Under Larissa Waters, who has stepped down for health reasons, it was that the party had been too obstructive, and was punished electorally for it.

Under David Shoebridge – chosen by the party room over Mehreen Faruqi and Sarah Hanson-Young in the first contested leadership ballot in the party’s history – it is that conciliation fails to distinguish the Greens from Labor.

One defeat, two lessons Both interpretations hold some merit.

Parties often trade off three goals: influencing policy, holding office and winning votes.

Under Bandt, the Greens sought policy gains through (initially) hardline bargaining, stalling Labor’s housing and climate agendas before settling for modest concessions.

They reaped neither the benefits of strident opposition nor those of compromise, but the costs of both .

Waters maintained the focus on policy but amended the method.

Her “firm but constructive” approach produced further gains, such as on investor taxes and environmental laws , among others.

But the party’s support barely moved.

In selecting Shoebridge, the party appears to have concluded that policy wins cannot substitute for distinctiveness at election time.